A. ABHISHEK REDDY
Central Board of Trustees, EPFO through the Regional P. F Commissioner-II – Appellant
Versus
Urmila Info Solutions – Respondent
A. Abhishek Reddy. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the following reliefs: –
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28-03-2023 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as CGIT only) in IT No. 2/9/2022 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent against two separate orders passed under section 14B and 7Q and has directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,02,18,489/- to the respondent.
(ii) For holding that the order dated 28-03- 2023 passed by the learned CGIT-II, Dhanbad is against the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 10921/2022 whereby the matter was remanded to the Tribunal with an observation that no appeal is provided against an order passed under Section 7Q, yet the Tribunal has not only decided upon the order passed under Section 7Q but has also set aside the order passed under Section 7Q.
(iii) For holding that the order passed by the Tribunal on 28.3.2023 is against the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station vs. Regio
Arcot Textile Mills vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg vs. The Regional Provident Fund Organization
Arcot Textile Mills vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.