Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
New Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 July, 1996 cites

The Regional Provident ... vs Shree Krishna Metal Manufacturingco., ... on 14 March, 1962

There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner had defaulted in depositing the contributions, both its own as well as of the employees on due date. The Act 1952 was enacted to serve beneficent purpose and it is constituted as a welfare measure as it seeks to credit fund which could be drawn upon by certain categories of employees working in factories and similar establishments to meet pressing demands, so also to provide pension after the employees have ceased to be in service. Having in mind the beneficent purpose of the said Act the fact that it has been constituted as a welfare measure, it has to be construed in such a way. A reference in this respect may have to be made to two decisions of Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., reported in (1962-I-LLJ-427) and in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works, reported in (1965-I-LLJ-473). This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the provisions of Section 14-B of the Act, 1952. This Court has very limited powers of judicial review in such cases. It can only go into a question whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in assessing the damages to be levied for delayed payments under the provisions of the Act, 1952 has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case or not. Where it is shown that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the reply filed by the employer, the order may not be in accordance with law, but interference can only be made where the aforesaid illegality is made in making of the order by the said authority and it has resulted in substantial failure of justice to the employer. In the present case, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after affording full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering all the facts and circumstances brought on record by it, imposed the damages. The reasoning adopted after consideration of all the materials produced on record and facts and circumstances of the case for imposing the damages is not perverse. No interference of this Court, in the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, impugned in this Special Civil Application, is called for to the extent of levying of 100% damages on the other grounds except the first contention made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 15 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shibu Metal Works on 9 November, 1964

There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner had defaulted in depositing the contributions, both its own as well as of the employees on due date. The Act 1952 was enacted to serve beneficent purpose and it is constituted as a welfare measure as it seeks to credit fund which could be drawn upon by certain categories of employees working in factories and similar establishments to meet pressing demands, so also to provide pension after the employees have ceased to be in service. Having in mind the beneficent purpose of the said Act the fact that it has been constituted as a welfare measure, it has to be construed in such a way. A reference in this respect may have to be made to two decisions of Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co., reported in (1962-I-LLJ-427) and in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works, reported in (1965-I-LLJ-473). This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the provisions of Section 14-B of the Act, 1952. This Court has very limited powers of judicial review in such cases. It can only go into a question whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in assessing the damages to be levied for delayed payments under the provisions of the Act, 1952 has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case or not. Where it is shown that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the reply filed by the employer, the order may not be in accordance with law, but interference can only be made where the aforesaid illegality is made in making of the order by the said authority and it has resulted in substantial failure of justice to the employer. In the present case, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after affording full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering all the facts and circumstances brought on record by it, imposed the damages. The reasoning adopted after consideration of all the materials produced on record and facts and circumstances of the case for imposing the damages is not perverse. No interference of this Court, in the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, impugned in this Special Civil Application, is called for to the extent of levying of 100% damages on the other grounds except the first contention made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 47 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1