CWP No.20220 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20220 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.05.2011 Satyawan and others .. Petitioners Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I) and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** MAHESH GROVER J. (ORAL) In response of the notice of motion issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondents, which is as follows:- “ That it is respectfully submitted here that M/s Radhika Fibres India Ltd is an establishment covered under the Employee's Provident Fund & Miscll. Provisions Act, 1952, with the answering Respondent. The claims of the petitioners were received by the answering Respondents without attestation of employer of establishment. The answering Respondent deputed the Enforcement Officer to get the claim forms attested from the employer either by visiting the establishment or the employer at his residence. In spite of best efforts on the part of the answering Respondent, the employer could not be located either at CWP No.20220 of 2010 ::2:: establishment or at his residence. Therefore to get the claim form attested by the banker of the petitioners, the same were forwarded to standing counsel of petitioner for attestation, as the attestation of the claim forms is mandatory to establish the bona fide status of the claimant. Therefore the settlement could not be made and accordingly the claim applications were returned to counsel of the petitioners vide office letter No.HR/RTK/LEGAL/HC/34 Dated 28.04.11. That the present writ petition may be disposed off by directing the petitioner to apply with complete documents for withdrawal of provident fund duly attested from the employer or from a banker of the member/gazetted officer, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner would make the payment of provident fund and pension within one week. It is further submitted here that as the employer could not be located, the office is also looking forward to prosecute him u/s 14 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 read with para 72 of the EPF Scheme”. In view of the aforesaid, let the petitioner approach the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respondents shall thereafter make the payment of the entire dues to the petitioners within one week thereafter. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the employer has been proceeded against and the notice has been issued to him in the suit. This satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be dismissed as such. Ordered accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) May 2, 2011 JUDGE Sukhpreet