Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing Josts Engineering Limited, Bombay vs Union Of India And Another on 6 October, 1982

Super Processors vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 October, 1991

In my view, the above case can apply only to cases where the employers in response to the show cause notice file their replies and adduce evidence in support. In such a case there is a lis between the parties. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in such a case would be bound to decide the issues arising between the parties by supporting them by reasons. If the reply of the employer gives different reasons for the default in respect of different periods, naturally the Provident Fund Commissioner will be obliged to give reasons for deciding each of the defaults separately. There can, therefore, be no quarrel in respect of the propositions laid down in the above cases. However, in the present case, the employer has failed to file a reply, failed to adduce evidence and has chosen to remain absent. In the present case ten adjournments were granted but no reply was filed. I fail to see what reasons can be expected from the Provident Fund Commissioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sushma Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Bank Of India And Anr. on 15 January, 1991

7. Mr. Bhatkal submits that assessment of damages under Section 14-B has to be with reference to the twin factors of compensating loss of interest to members and penalising of the defaulting employer. The impugned orders do not show such an awareness. The contention is not tenable vis-a-vis the order assailed in the 1984 petition. There the compensatory and punitive proportions are placed at 10% to 90% respectively. The second order reads as if the entire sum represents the punitive factor. The decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Josts Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 1985 Mah. L.J. 454, does require an awareness of the twin aspects. But a failure would not vitiate the order.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

The Regional Provident Fund ... vs The South India Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. on 13 September, 1984

19. The learned counsel has also referred to us the decision of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Josts Engineering Ltd., Bombay v. Union of India and another [1983-II L.L.J. 436]. The table with reference to which an argument was advanced before us was also the table questioned in that case and the learned Judge has observed that the quasi-judicial authority is not expected to conform to the tables, but to use his own judgment and support it by a speaking order once again a proposition which is incapable of any controversy. The learned Judge has also observed that an administrative authority cannot in any manner channel the discretion of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority by directives and that the authority under S. 14-B while assessing the damages was obliged to write a speaking order of his assessment setting out the reasons for it so that it was readily exposed to the scrutiny of a Court exercising writ jurisdiction. It however appears that with regard to this table a submission was made on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner that "this table is merely a guideline and the authority's discretion is not fettered in any way." This was not accepted by the learned Judge, because the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner stated that the officers functioning under the Act are bound to follow the reasonable guidelines laid down by the Central Board of Trustees. The learned Judge therefore, held that a quasi-judicial authority is not expected to conform to it, but he has to use his own judgment and support it by a speaking order. We have also taken the same view in the earlier part of this judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sivaramakrishna Iyer vs Regional P.F. Commr. on 21 August, 1987

2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is empowered under Section 14B to impose damages extending to 100 per cent of the duties in appropriate cases. The Commissioner has to exercise the discretion in imposing the penalty or reasonable basis and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the liability of the petitioner to make the contributions had been finally determined only by the order dated 6.6.1980. There has been no default thereafter and the adoption of 100 per cent for the delay of one month as well as for the delay of about 10 months prior to the date of the order is not supported by any reason and can only to be characterised as arbitrary and unreasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Josts Engineering Limited, Bombay v. Union of India, 1983 (II) L.L.J. 436, urged that the Commissioner as a quasi judicial authority is obliged to decide on proper application of mind considering the fact that damages contemplated under Section 14B covered compensation for actual loss and the punitive element must state what the allocation between two heads is and that Ext. P1 is not in consonance with these requirements.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1