Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
1 “EPFAT”
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2021.03.27
12:25:55 IST
Reason:
CA 1053/2021 ... Delhi High Court was on account of the fact that the
EPFAT was situated in Delhi. Thus, the dismissal of the writ petition was
upheld
office report, counsel for the appellants has been
appointed as Presiding Officer, EPFAT, Bengaluru.
The appellant has to make alternative arrangement
The Registry is directed
follows :
“20. It is finally submitted that establishment
of a separate EPFAT for southern states of India
has been directed, keeping in view the interest
appointment of the counsel for the appellants
as Presiding Officer, EPFAT, Bengaluru, this Court issued notice to
the appellants for making alternative arrangements.
However, when
counsel for the appellant is now appointed as Presiding
Officer, EPFAT, Bengaluru. Hence, Registry to issue alternative
arrangement notice to the appellant.
List the matter
above mentioned matters has been appointed as Presiding
Officer, EPFAT, Bengaluru vide circular dated 11.07.2016 but no one
has entered appearance on behalf
affidavit. Now,
Advocate for the respondent has been appointed as Presiding
Officer, EPFAT, Bengaluru Bench. Before assuming charge he must
have complied with Rule
