BANSAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI AND
LAWS(ALL)-2000-1-153
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 24,2000

BANSAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Chaturvedi appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5.7.1999 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7 (1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the order dated 18.2.1998 has been allowed and the case has been remanded to respondent No. 2 with the observations that the question of coverage has already become final.
(3.) It appears that in the proceedings under the aforesaid Act order dated 2.6.1995 was passed in exercise of powers under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7A. Against the said order, no appeal was filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, therefore, proceeded to determine the amount due from the petitioner in exercise of power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7A. Order was thereafter passed on 18.2.1990. It is not necessary to state all facts relating filing writ petition in this Court and the orders passed therein. It would suffice to state that appeal was filed against the order dated 18.2.1998 only, by the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed by impugned Judgment and order. Operative portion of the said order is quoted below : "The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent that determination may be done by a speaking order disclosing the basis of determination. The appellants wilt be afforded one opportunity to produce all the records and statements extracted from those records to make out their own case quite clear. If because of some emergency they cannot produce all the records on one day, one more opportunity of one month may be given, failing which the case may be proceeded ex parte and decided afresh. 2, The coverage has already become final. The case is remanded back for re-determination in the light of observations made above.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.