Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K.Kumaresh Babu, JJ
The Commissioner Maraimalai Nagar Municipality – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I Employees Provident Fund Organisation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal initiated against dismissal of petition. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on compliance and responsibilities under epf act. (Para 2 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. condition of deposit is essential for appeal. (Para 12) |
| 4. court analysis on compliance and tribunal authority. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. order for tribunal to expedite proceedings. (Para 15) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner, Maraimalai Nagar Municipality against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.11.2023, dismissing the writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the Writ Petitioner failed to deposit 35% of the Award amount.
2. Mr.R.Purushothaman, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant would submit that the quantum of EPF has not been determined by Regional PF Commissioner and that the total number of employees is also under dispute. He would further submit that the entire PF amount has been taken based on the employee record and the amount has been determined by the authority and issued final order under Section 7 (A) of the Act.
3. Aggrieved over the decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I/respond
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
