1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Provident Fund Commissioner vs Ramdhari Mophanprasad & 1

High Court Of Gujarat|21 June, 2012
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Petitioner Versus RAMDHARI MOPHANPRASAD & 1 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance :
MR PJ MEHTA for Petitioner: MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Petitioner RULE SERVED for Respondents : 1 - 2.
MR KR KOSHTI for Respondent : 1, MR PANKAJ R DESAI for Respondents : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 21/06/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner- P.F. Commissioner, Rajkot had to file this petition challenging the order dated 25.7.2003 passed in Central Recovery Application No. 1 of 2002, whereunder, the Labour Court passed an order and direction against the PF Commissioner- petitioner, which was not maintainable at all in eye of law.
2. This Court (Coram: Jayant Patel,J.) on 12.1.2004 passed the following order:
“Notice returnable on 30.1.2004.
2. By way of interim order, there shall be stay against the execution of the order qua the petitioner only and it will be open to the respondent No.1 to execute and recover the amount from respondent No.2 herein.”
3. On 17.3.2004, the Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) passed the following order:
“1. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Koshti, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.Desai, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Rule. By way of interim order, it is directed that the operation and implementation of the order shall remain stayed qua the petitioner. However, such interim relief shall be with the further directions that the petitioner shall take steps for recovery of the amount from Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd., and shall deposit the amount after such amount is recovered as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today. It is clarified that if the recovery cannot be effected directly, the claim in accordance with law shall be launched by the appropriate authority and the payment shall be realized as and when liquid money is available in order of statutory priority as per law. The matter to be listed for final hearing on 25-8-2004.”
4. None is present for the petitioner. Today, Shri Kosti, learned advocate appearing for respondent has also submitted that workman has no objection if the direction qua PF Commissioner is quashed as it would not be appropriate direction at all. However, while quashing the order, the Court may observe on the statement made by advocate for the workman that the workman has already received the amount deposited with the authority concerned and allowing of this petition shall not in any way prejudice to workman concerned.
5. The order qua issuance of direction to the PF Commissioner per-se untenable, contrary to provisions of law and required to be quashed and set aside without any further elaborate discussion on merits. However, quashing of the order would not be adversely affect the workman as he has already received the amount which was deposited with the authority. The amount if any yet outstanding with the authority, the workman would be at liberty to have appropriate proceedings for recovering the same.
6. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside qua direction to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Provident Fund Commissioner vs Ramdhari Mophanprasad & 1


High Court Of Gujarat

21 June, 2012
  • S R Brahmbhatt
  • Mr Pj Mehta
  • Mr Niral R Mehta