Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
SPC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cgit order regarding pf dues. (Para 1) |
| 2. jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear appeals. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defense of validity in tribunal's rejection. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. clear provisions of section 7i regarding appeals. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. rules assisting but not superseding statute. (Para 8) |
| 6. appeals must follow statutory provisions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has challenged the order of the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) dated 02.03.2022 in case bearing No.ATA No.D-1/07/2022. The petitioner had approached the learned CGIT against the order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the APFC cum Recovery Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 8B to 8G of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing the establishment to deposit Rs.14,99,785/- as the arrear PF dues of the employees. The respondent had taken an objection that the appeal challenging action under Section 8B to 8G of the Act is not maintainable. Learned Tribunal has inter alia held that a plain reading of the provision of S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
