Municipal Corporation Kanlyan ... vs Regional Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15715 Bom

         Digitally signed
SONALI   by SONALI
         MILIND PATIL
MILIND   Date:
         2021.11.08
PATIL    16:24:42
         +0530                                     1/2            10. WP.7471.2021.doc


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7471 OF 2021

                   Municipal Corporation for the City
                   of Kalyan Dombivli                                    ... Petitioner
                              Vs.
                   Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II,
                   Thane.                                                ... Respondent

                                                   ...........
                   Mr. A. S. Rao for the Petitioner.

                                                     ..........
                                       CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

(VACATION COURT)

DATE : 8th NOVEMBER, 2021.

P. C. :-

1. Mr. A. S. Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner tenders proposed amendment, by which certain grounds are proposed to be added and certain more reliefs are sought.

2. Leave to amend as per proposed amendment produced in the Court which is marked "X" for identification. Amendment to be carried out within a week.

3. Heard Mr. A. S. Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner. He states that Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent is not available but when the matter was on board on 3rd and 4th November, 2021, his colleague was available on behalf of the Respondent but matter did not reach.

Sonali 2/2 10. WP.7471.2021.doc

4. He states that Petitioner is Municipal Corporation and is a local authority. He submitted that Respondent has assessed amount of Rs. 110 Crores as Provident Fund dues. However, the said amount is very exorbitant. He submitted that Petitioner has filed appeal with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Mumbai. He submitted that by the impugned order dated 3 rd September, 2021, appeal is admitted subject to deposit of 40% of assessed amount with the Respondent and deposit was directed to be made within 6 weeks. He submitted that the Petitioner-local authority is facing financial crunch and therefore, the said order could not be implemented. Apart from that, he submitted that the amount quantified is in violation of various judgments.

5. In view of this, notice before admission to the Respondent, returnable on 24th November, 2021. Till then no coercive steps be taken.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Sonali