T.S.THAKUR, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Appellant
Versus
HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ganguly, J.-Leave granted.
2. The question which falls for consideration before this Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment which is an `exempted establishment' under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, `the Act') is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an `exempted establishment'.
3. The question was raised by the respondent before the High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and held that the respondent being an `exempted establishment' cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Act.
4. The material facts of case are not much in dispute.
5. By notification dated 23.11.1967, the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 17(1) (a) of the Act granted exemption to the respondent, which is a company registered under the Companies Act subject to the provisions specified in Schedule II annexed to the sai
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur
S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
State of West Bengal v. Union of India
Jones v. Wrotham Park Settled Estates
National Buildings Construction Corporation v. Pritam Singh Gill
Dr. Pratap Singh v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.