CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Vs. AKOLA JANTA COMMERCIAL CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD
LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-17
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on
July 07,2022
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Appellant
VERSUS
Akola Janta Commercial Co.Operative Bank Ltd
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
THE PACHORA PEOPLES' CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. THE EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION [REFERRED TO]PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AMRAVATI REGIONAL MANAGER WEST ZONE NOW KNOWN AS KANPUR REGION BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH:CHANDRASHEKHAR MARIBHAU DESHMUKH :SECRETARY U P BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C O BANK OF BARODA LATOUCHE ROAD KANPUR :LABOUR COURT RANCHI:NAMDEO:SECRETA [REFERRED TO]
FUERST DAY LAWSON LIMITED VS. JINDAL EXPORT LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS A P VS. M R APPARAO [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MANOHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RANBIR ALIAS RANA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. MANJEET SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA VS. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PACHORA PEOPLES' CO-OP. BANK LTD. VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION [REFERRED TO]
THE PACHORA PEOPLES CO-OP BANK LTD VS. THE EPFO THR. P.F COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
SANMITRA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, AKOLA [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL VS. MANJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard.
(2.)By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dtd. 29/8/2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holding pigmy agent would not be employee within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, "the Act of 1952").
(3.)Shri H. N. Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5154/2016 in the case of Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner [2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 567]. Therefore, he prayed for remanding the proceedings to the Provident Fund Commissioner for holding an enquiry under Sec. 7(A) of the Act of 1952 in the light of parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Pachora Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Employee Provident Fund Organization [2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 436].
;
(2.)By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dtd. 29/8/2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holding pigmy agent would not be employee within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, "the Act of 1952").
(3.)Shri H. N. Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5154/2016 in the case of Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner [2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 567]. Therefore, he prayed for remanding the proceedings to the Provident Fund Commissioner for holding an enquiry under Sec. 7(A) of the Act of 1952 in the light of parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Pachora Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Employee Provident Fund Organization [2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 436].
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.