Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Martin Burn Limited vs T.C. Moorjani And Ors. on 9 August, 1973 cites

C.R. Abrol vs Administrator Under The Slum Areas And ... on 4 May, 1970

The same principle was applied to the proceedings before the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 by a Division Bench of this Court in C. R. Abrol v. Administrator under the Slums Act etc. 2nd (1970) I Delhi 768 at 775. Similarly, under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, the payment of contribution by the employer to the provident fund depends on the satisfaction of the jurisdictional condition that the factory of the employer is covered by the said Act. A mere denial by the employer as to the coverage of his factory under the Act does not, ho wever, mean that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is disabled from holding the inquiry. On the contrary, he must hold an inquiry though his finding regarding the coverage of the factory may be challengable in a civil court.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Magiti Sasamal vs Pandab Bissoi on 20 September, 1961

(Magiti Sasamal V. Pandab Bissoi, . This does not mean, however, that the Controlling Authority cannot at all inquire into this issue or that the petitioner can disable the Controlling Authority from making an inquiry by merely denying that the Respondents 2 and 3 are its employees. On the contrary, the Legislature has intended that initially the Controlling Authority may find out whether the relationship of employer and employee exists. If he finds that it does not exist, then he would drop the proceedings. If he finds that it exists, he would continue the proceedings to determine the amount of gratuity. This is subject to the right of the aggrieved party to go to the civil court for a final determination of this issue which goes to the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 50 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1