D.R.KHANNA, RAJINDAR SACHAR
BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVINGMILLS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS group of petitions were heard together. All of them are directed against the respective orders of Respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposing damages under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called Act ). Many of the points raised are common and will stand decided in all the petitions by the decision given in one of the petition. We shall however deal with each petition separately, also.
( 2 ) SECTION 5 of 1952 Act empowers the Central Government to frame a scheme to be called Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of Provident Funds under the Act,. . . and there shall be established, after the framing of a scheme a Fund. Section 6 of the 1952 Act provides for payment of contributions by the employer to the Fund of six and a quarter percent of the basic wages payable to the employee and employee s contribution, which shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him. Section 2 (h) of the Act defines "fund" to mean the Provident Fund established under a Scheme.
( 3 ) EMPLOYEE s Provident Fund Scheme 1952 was published on 2nd September, 1
The Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi
East India Coal Co. v. Rameshwar
Punjab Co operative Bank Ltd. v. R. S. Bhatia
Air India v. Nereesh Meerza and Others
B. M. Lakhani v. Malkapur Municipality
Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab
Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer, Delhi
Coal Mines P.F. Commr. v. J.P Lalla
Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha
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.