Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
M/S.Tittu Travels And Transporter ... vs He Singareni Collieries Company ... on 24 August, 2022
cites
The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948
M/S.Mallikarjuna Transport vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 28 February, 2020
The doubts
expressed by the learned Single Judge in the previous
round of litigation i.e., in M/s. Mallikarjuna Transport
v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited
(W.P.No.11107 of 2009 and batch, dated 30.03.2011)
does not appear to be justified and the same has been
proved by the consequential orders passed by the Coal
Mines Provident Fund Organisation.
Karachi Bakery vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 29 March, 1990
15. The facts in Karachi Bakery's case (supra) and the
issues considered therein are clearly distinguishable from
14
the facts of the related batch of writ petitions, being
W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch.
The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Anz Grindlays Bank Ltd @ Standard ... vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 2005
Insofar the decision of the Calcutta High Court in
Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra) is concerned,
that was a case where the question arose as to whether the
canteen employees were employees of the bank. Applying
the principle of ultimate control, learned Single Judge of
the Calcutta High Court took the view that employees of
the canteen may not be construed to be employees of the
bank. Therefore, the writ petition filed at the instance of
the bank assailing the order of the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner was disposed of remitting the matter
back to the authority to take a fresh decision in accordance
with law. We are of the considered opinion that the above
decision rendered by the learned Single Judge having only
persuasive value is also distinguishable on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
1