Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
D. Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks review application under epf act. (Para 1) |
| 2. standing counsel argues review conditions unmet. (Para 2) |
| 3. court finds reason for review rejection unsound. (Para 3) |
| 4. court disposes of writ petition; review to be considered. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner suffered Ext.P8 order under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’), determining the liability of the petitioner for the period from September, 2014 to November, 2015. The said order was passed on the basis of an order of remand by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order for the same period. The petitioner is now before this Court stating that the application for review filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the 1952 Act has now been rejected by Ext.P14, taking the stand that, since Ext.P2 order was already subject matter of an appeal, a further application for review of Ext.P8 under Section 7B of the 1952 Act is not maintainable.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation would submit, with refere
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
