Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.77 seconds)The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
Section 16 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School ... on 30 October, 2006
24. Lastly, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional
Provident Fund Commission v. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and others
reported in JT 2006 (10) SC 159. In that case, the Supreme Court held that even
though the PF Act applied to educational institutions since state Government had
exempted educational institutions they are excluded by the provisions of the
Act. Such is not the case in the present circumstances.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs Pune Municipal Transport & Ors on 3 August, 2010
For a full discourse on the meaning of the term "Under the control
of the Government" a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 2010 (8) SCC
467 in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and
others.
Section 16 in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 7A in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Sikkim Employees' ... vs State Of Sikkim And Ors. on 27 September, 2000
21. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the
judgment of the Sikkim High Court in State Bank of Sikkim Employees' Association
and another v. State of Sikkim and others reported in 2001-II-LLJ 797 for
contending that once the CPF Rules are applicable, the PF Act will not apply.
But in that case, the Sikkim High Court found section 16(1)(c) of the PF Act
will apply to the Bank as State Bank of Sikkim was an establishment either
belonging to the Central Government or it is under the control of the Central
Government. It is not clear as to how the said ratio will have any application
to the case on hand.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Digamber Jain Secondary School on 12 February, 2002
22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thereafter relied upon a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Union of India and others v.
Digamber Jain Secondary School reported in 2003-I-LLJ 398. In that case a
private educational institution in the State of Rajasthan which was having
recognition and grant-in-aid was held to be covered by Section 16(1)(b) as a
scheme framed by the State Government for the benefits similar to the PF Act was
in force.
1