?.^ •^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR (G.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. /2005 PETITIONER Kusum Engineering Works, Shop No. K-4-40,Zone-2, Sector 11, Khursipar, Bhilai, Dist.Durg (C.G.) Througfa its Proprietor Lal Babu Shrivastava, S/o. Shri C. Lal, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Street 35, Qr. No. 4/F, Zone-2, Sector 11, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) VERSUS RESECWBENTS .<2 &>.. f ^J^V^^ j^.-^')^;:^ .-^'•-'^cw*.-1^' l...--'"^ '^•'^te*w*'y<; "....-••<"" ^- ^' ?<essn "^---"""6 ^ • •** l/^ .'••• -^* J> l^ c^" Employees Provident Fund Organisation.., Regional Office, Nava Bharat Complex, Rajvandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Through its Commissioner Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Nava Bharat Complex, Rajvandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND EOR OTHER SUITftBLE WRIT OR WRTTS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ETC. XI-HC-22 a.n^r^r f^fNisn^r sbtiitiyfsa sb*1 ~SS{ "i||i||i~|<|, 8iTfl^)'|S, fcKII+fy 311^1 <4^<t) tltlrtl sh*<lth •••••••••"•••••"-'y^-2005~~ 311^1 8'KIIWHfilT 20-i-2005 /r qillFd'fl-t HI*1CTTfffelAlRl«l< ^sri^Tsn^r On a mention being made, |the case is taken up for hsaring. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, counsel Mr. Pradeep Saksena, cou^isei for the rgspondents. Heard both the counsei. The petitioner has questiohed the legality and propriety of the orders dated 17-2-2005 and 25-2-200^ ^ Commissionsr, Regional Cfficer, of Rs.1,42,826/-, statutory dues ijinder the Employees' Provident Funds and Miseeiianeous ProvisionsAct, 195 Vide order dated 10-6-20i No.XXI, Adm. Chargss, and ths When in pursuance of the said for the petitioner. issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Raipur, asking the petitioner to pay a sum 12 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). p4 (Annexure P-9) the Regionai Provldent Fund Commissioner, Regional Qffice, Raipur, under Section 7A of the Act determln.ed the amount of Rs.1,4p,826/- due against the petitioner under the Providsnt Fund A/c-1, E. Pensitin Fund A/c-X, E.D.L.I. contributions A/c petitioner was asked to deposit the same. order, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, notice dated 17-2-2005 flAnnexure P-12) was issueAto the petitioner asking him to deposit the amouht within seven days, which the petitioner failed to deposit. Thereafter, agafn notice dated 25-2-2005 (Annexure P-14) was issued to ttie petitioner, and|both these notices Annsxures P-12 & P-14 have been questio'ned bythe petit| Leamed counsel for the p^titioner argued that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner without looki^ig into the return filed by the petitioner that the employees were aiready remo) As far as this argumentl oner herein. ted, has determined the amoum. of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is already a pr(3vision under the Act and the petitioner is ..•.•""ii jnw»wi.Mi XT-HC-22 sii^rw fN^an^r ^ «RrT Soma 3^'^HId-T, yTil^lg, {^TRfy 31|^| *11*1MI sfilTra? ...y....^.: '. 13.90/^ 200.5" R'b^, €.r sTT^T^n'Wfflsa' entitled to file appeal before the ^rafepft^ wicft'ff fet^ (RI%R ^STf^TSn^T 'iounai at Delhl. This it as an appellate Court and cannot go iijito the merits ofthe said orders. The second contention rais^d by teamed counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner intends to file a days more time is also availab| j3peal again^t the said orders dated 17-2- 2005 and 25-2-2005 before the Tlribunai for which iimitation is 60 days and e to the petitioner, of course subject to the extension granted by the Tribunal.l '.. 1 .... . .. ...... . .. .. Lsamed counsei for the\j)etitioner further submits that her iimjted prayer is that the petitioner may ^e ailowed some time to fiie appeai and tiil then the respondents be asked no( to insist for recovery of that amount. Mr. Pradeep Saksena, learfied counsei for the respondents submitted that sufficient time was at the cojnmand of the petitioner, and the petitioner ought to have filed appeal and obt^ined stay. Having heard iearned coi|insel for the parties, having perused ths documents and having regard circumstances of Uie case, 1 am to the limitetion time, in the facts and of the opinion that it is just and proper to ailow 30 days' time from today t^ the petitioner to fite appeal and obtain the order from the appellate TribunaiJDelhl, and ifthe petitioner Is falled to obtain any order from the Tribunal withifi this period, then the respondents shail be at liberty to enforee the impugnedjordsre. Ordered accordingly. With the observations ar|d directions aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. | Consequently, M.(W.)P.!^o.1068/2005 and i.A.No.2606/2005 also stand disposed of. Parties are entitied for certffied copy ofthis order. V-.'c.^ado° ~3ud9e -dflAAfeAL