1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2002 as illegal and further be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to grant exemption to the respondent No.1 Company under para39 of the Employees' Pensions Scheme 1995 in the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act holding that the scheme formulated by the respondent No.1 Company is comparatively better.
(B) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(C) Be pleased to award the costs of this petition.
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to STAY the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 24.06.2002 at Annexure “H” to this petition and restrain the respondent No.1 Company from depositing the amount with the respondent Nos.3 & 4 and refrain the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner respondent No.4 from taking any coercive action compelling the respondent No.1 Company to deposit amount of terminal benefits.”
2. Heard Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Nirav Joshi for Nanavati Associates for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shaikh, learned advocate for respondent No.3. None present on behalf of the other respondents.
3. Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner states that inspite of repeated attempts, he could not receive any instruction from the petitioner. Mr. Nirav Joshi, learned advocate for respondent No.1 is also not in a position to dispute the said position. No further arguments are made.
4. Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it appears that respondent No.1 has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.6.2002 deserves to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Liberty to revive in case of difficulty. Rule discharged.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya