Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Luke Memorial Public School vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 19 October, 2009
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent PF Department, Mr. Yashwant Mehta, does not
dispute the applicability of these judgments cited at Bar by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to above, on the question
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.807/1999
M/s Vivekanand Memorial Public School, Raisinghnagar
Vs.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Digamber Jain Secondary School on 12 February, 2002
3. Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the controversy that recognized private educational
institutions covered by the State control or aided under the Grant-in-
Aid Rules, is exempted from the provisions of the PF Act of 1952 and
this controversy has been settled by this Court as well as by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment annexed with the writ
petition in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Digamber Jain
Secondary reported in 2002 (3) WLC 74 and by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs.
Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School & Ors. (Appeal (Civil)
No.7016/2004 decided on 30.10.2006).
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School ... on 30 October, 2006
3. Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the controversy that recognized private educational
institutions covered by the State control or aided under the Grant-in-
Aid Rules, is exempted from the provisions of the PF Act of 1952 and
this controversy has been settled by this Court as well as by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment annexed with the writ
petition in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Digamber Jain
Secondary reported in 2002 (3) WLC 74 and by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs.
Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School & Ors. (Appeal (Civil)
No.7016/2004 decided on 30.10.2006).
Section 7A in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Ram Shankar Maurya on 31 January, 2013
He has also submitted that
about number of employees recorded by the Inspector during the
survey, there were interpolations made by the said authority and he
was prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and vide judgment/order dated
24.12.2000 in Criminal Case No.7/95 (16/98)- Union of India Vs.
M.S. Maurya, and the said person has been convicted for the
offences of corruption and based on his report, the coverage of the
petitioner Institution could not be upheld by the learned PF Tribunal
as has been done in the impugned order (Annex.15) dated
19.11.1998.
1