?9 8?\?? `1&+?M)6??M?+Q? ?Br ??/ vs ?W ?30Ey Gl*1? Ew}? Kcx\Ti?? ????B9C?? ... on 17 September, 2008
5. The Regional Provident Fund Cammissioner,
Mangalore of the Petitioner ~-- Organisation, by order (it.
UK
5
24.09.2002 Armexure ~ "A" observed that
obligation is cast on the Respondent,_.»'lto. K
contribution and as the
legislation, the successful we1fsre'oi"€lhe L'
Scheme being dependant by
employers declined 'Vi"es%§ondent's
explanation for the ii levied
damages of ~-- Respondent to
deposit 'Penal fiamages',
a ._ which action would be
initiated with interest at 12% per
as provided for by Section 7Q of the Act: and in.
V. in Sections 813 to 8G of the Act.
it 6,. Respondent, aggieved by the order,
ll."»-'~___l'-».p1efe1':i'ed* an apmal before the Employees Provident
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in A.T.A No.663
2003, whence the Tribunal having observed the law
it laid down by the Apex Court in ms. rxmnusrm
M
6
STEEL LIHITED vs TI-{E STATE or onxssei
with the decision 01' the Apex K
czemmcm. zmmsmms
01%' mm 8: o'rI-12352,, held '--- fimt
Organisation had failed to the to
whether there was part of
the empleyer mAVnen-pggygfiefiz'V:Vth;(§§;éjf1i§:9i'butiens under
the Act, mt;)re_ the respondent
' straits and
A' 56.63.2009, resmcted the
cIa.:1£1ageS,_:1;)V axanum. on the arrears of
conizfihutiefi. Renee, Writ Petition.
' eementien of the Learned Cotmsei for
the that the appeal memorandum befere the
Tribunal was apposed by filing Statement ef
e~Ifee.b}écuons, must stand repeiied in the lighi: of the
Specific statement recorded in the order impug:r1ed that
' " 'AIRl9'7'1}SC253 M
3a;K:9?9s{::se3
no counter was filed, coupled with the fae1;_ "xlip
material is forthcoming in this petition to ee§;abiiefi
said assertion.