Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 17 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
M/S Hindustan Times Limited vs Union Of India & Others on 7 January, 1998
In the same context the
Apex Court in „Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. UOI‟, (1998) 2 SCC 242,
held: -
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
The Factories Act, 1948
Section 4 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Gram Sewa Samiti vs Regional Commissioner, Employees' ... on 13 February, 1997
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned
order was passed without taking note of contentions raised by the
petitioner and as such it is non-speaking and cryptic. The reliance
placed by respondent No.1 on 'Gram Seva Samiti vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner', (1997) 2 LLJ 1202 and 'RPFC vs.
K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.' 1995 SCC (1) 181 was misconceived
and the law stated therein does not apply to the facts of the present
case. There was no observation by respondent No. 3 in his order dated
03.02.2006 that the default on the part of the petitioner was intentional
or deliberate. No penalty could have been imposed under Section 14-B
W.P.(C) No.3743/2011 Page 5 of 17
of the EPF Act unless there is a proof or at least an allegation that
default on the part of the petitioner was intentional or deliberate.