Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Institute Of Engineering And Rural Technology – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Factual matrix of present case, in brief, are that petitioner has suffered with an order dated 18.10.2021 passed under Section 7-A of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1952”). Being aggrieved petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7-B of Act, 1952 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2022. Both the above referred orders are under challenge before this Court.
2. At the outset, Sri Mukteshwar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-1, raised a preliminary objection that any order passed under Section 7-A of Act, 1952 is appealable under Section 7-I of Act, 1952 as well as the order passed in review petition is an order under Section 7-B(5), therefore, it is also appealable under Section 7-I of Act, 1952 and the present writ petition is not maintainable due to statutory alternative remedy available to petitioner.
3. Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, fairly submitted that any order passed under Section 7-A of Act, 1952 is appealable under Section 7-I of Act, however, every order passed under Section 7-B(5) is
The main legal point established is that orders passed under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are appealable under Section 7-I, and the power of re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions of Section 7B of the EPF Act, emphasizing the requirement of opportunity of hearing only under Sub-Section (....
The court emphasized that review applications under the Act must afford an opportunity for hearing to the aggrieved party, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
A review application under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act requires adherence to specific criteria even after an appeal.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond 120 days from the date of issuance of the order, and cannot condone the delay beyond the said period.
The rejection of a review application does not eliminate the right to appeal against the original order under Section 7A of the Act.
The right to be heard is fundamental; dismissal of a Review Application without a hearing violates natural justice principles.
A review petition under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act is not a de novo hearing; it requires the applicant to establish specific statutory grounds such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent ....
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
