SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 11

S.K.GANGELE, D.K.PALIWAL
Ramakrishna Vidhya Mandir – Appellant
Versus
E. P. F. Appellate Tribunal – Respondent


Advocates:
D.K. Agrawal for petitioner; R.K. Goyal for respondents No. 2 to 4.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders date 9.5.2011 (Annexure P/1) and date 19.4.2005 (Annexure P/2).

3. The petitioner society is registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. It has been managing school. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner to the effect that whether the petitioner was covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1952) for the purpose of payment of provident fund to its employees. A notice was issued on 3.4.1995. The petitioner submitted its reply. Thereafter, the petitioner institution deposited entire dues of Rs. 1,16,931/- on 24.8.1996. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner to the effect that why damages and interest be not ordered. The authority vide order date 19.4.2005 directed the petitioner institution to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,27,311/- for the damages and interest. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority modified the amount up to 75%. Against the aforesaid order, the Provident Fund Commissioner and the petitioner soc


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top