behalf of the petitioner further that the
impugned order of the learned EPFAT is wholly erroneous and is
liable to be set aside in view ... petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the
learned EPFAT is casual and mechanical without taking note of the
computation of damages along
Sachdeva Maternity & General ... vs Presiding Officer Epfat And Anr on 20 February, 2019
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal , Manjari Nehru Kaul ... Sachdeva Maternity & General Hospital ...... Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, EPFAT & anr. ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
employer/establishment.
15. The impugned order dated 09.05.2017 of the Ld. EPFAT taking
into account the provision of Section ... indirectly from
the employer is an 'employee'.
16. The EPFAT, New Delhi thus upheld the order dated 01.07.2013
of the APFC, Agartala
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the EPFAT
Rules”). The EPFAT Rules provide the procedures to be followed for
filing ... appeal.
41.Rule 7 of the EPFAT Rules speaks about “fee, time for filing
appeal”. Rule 7(2) contemplates that “any person aggrieved
before the Employees' Provident
Funds Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the EPFAT')
which is pending consideration.
2. Reasons for approaching this Court ... that
the EPFAT has failed to consider the petitioner's
interim prayer. It is for the petitioner to make
necessary endeavor to consider
Appellant before the Appellate Authority under Section 21 of the EPFAT
(Procedure Rules 1997) in which the Appellate Authority issued a direction
on 30th October
very same issue under Section 7-I of
the Act before EPFAT, New Delhi, which decided the matter in favour of the
Appellant
dated 28.01.2011 passed in ATA.No.843(13) of
2009 by the EPFAT, New Delhi, is under challenge in the present writ
petition
petition deserves to succeed is that
the appeal before the Presiding Officer, EPFAT, New Delhi was filed
1 of 5
::: Downloaded ... Prason Tool & Plants, Kanpur , (1975) 4 SCC 22; APFC Vs.
EPFAT, 2006 (2) LLJ 388; Saint Soldier Modern Sr. Sec. School Vs. RPFC
filing counter reply on behalf of
Respondent before EPFAT, Delhi."
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent executed its order
