Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)

M/S Hindustan Times Limited vs Union Of India & Others on 7 January, 1998

8. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company had submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent, asking the petitioner company to remit the damages of Rs.14,96,868/-, under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is arbitrary and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He had further submitted that no proper reasons had been given by the respondents, while passing the orders directing the petitioner company to pay the damages, under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondents have not considered the fact that the non-payment of the provident fund dues was not willful and that there was no wrongful intention in such non-payment. The alleged default is only due to the financial crisis that had occurred in respect of the petitioner company. Further, the authorities concerned had not taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in M/s.Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 688, as well as the decisions of this Court, reported in Terrace Estate, Unit of United Plantation, Ltd. Vs. Asst. P.F.Commr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 245 - M J Rao - Full Document

M/S L.N.Gadodia & Sons & Anr vs Regional Provident Fund Commr on 26 September, 2011

2010(2) L.L.N. 196 and V.S.Murugan Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2011 (4) LLN 778 (Mad.). Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent may be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the second respondent to consider the issues arising for his consideration, afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 25 - H L Gokhale - Full Document
1