Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
M/S. ARBION INFRA SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery proceedings during ongoing appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. hearing of counsel on behalf of respondent. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observation allowing suspension. (Para 3) |
| 4. final ruling with payment condition. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that, when an appeal against the determination of damages under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’), is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, along with an application for stay, the Provident Fund authorities are proceeding to recover the amount by proceeding against the bank account of the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, I am of the view that, since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order No.KR/KCH/27968/000/ Damages/2024-25, imposing damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act, along with an application for stay, the
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
