Skip to content


Telco Transport Companies Association Through Tis Executive officer Namely Mahesh Sharan Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantTelco Transport Companies Association Through Tis Executive officer Namely Mahesh Sharan
RespondentThe Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors
Excerpt:
.....son of late s.s. sinha, resident of k-4/26 telco colony, p.o. & p.s. telco district jamshedpur,east singhbhum ( ttca) ... petitioner vs. 1.the regional provident fund commissioner employees provident fund organization jamshedpur, sub regional office, jamshedpur, p.o. margo p.s. mango district singhbhum east, 2.m/s tata engineering and locomotive company limited ( now known as tata motors ltd.) a company registered under companies act having its registered office at 24 homi modi street, port p.o. & p.s. mumbai and its works at jamshedpur p.o. & p.s. telco district singhbhum east. 3.m/s b.m. transport through its manager, mr. jagdish singh son of late charan singh, resident of shop no. e, old sector market, telco colony p.o. & p.s. telco, dist. singhbhum east. 4.m/s a.p. transport.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 641 of 2016 ------- Telco Transport Companies Association, Jamshedpur at Telco, P.O. & P.S. Telco, District Singhbhum East through its Executive officer namely Mahesh Sharan Son of late S.S. Sinha, resident of K-4/26 Telco Colony, P.O. & P.S. Telco District Jamshedpur,East Singhbhum ( TTCA) ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Jamshedpur, Sub Regional office, Jamshedpur, P.O. Margo P.S. Mango District Singhbhum East, 2.M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited ( now Known as Tata Motors Ltd.) a Company registered under Companies Act having its registered Office at 24 Homi Modi Street, Port P.O. & P.S. Mumbai and its works at Jamshedpur P.O. & P.S. Telco District Singhbhum East. 3.M/s B.M. Transport through its Manager, Mr. Jagdish Singh son of late Charan Singh, resident of shop no. E, Old Sector Market, Telco Colony P.O. & P.S. Telco, Dist. Singhbhum East. 4.M/s A.P. Transport company through its Manager, Mr. Chaturbhuj Shukla son of Uma shankar Shukla, resident of 102 Radhika Nagar P.O. & P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur-4, District East Singhbhum 5.M/s Bhaskar Transport Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, Mr. Pratap Shanker Shukla son of late Swamidin Shukla resident of Mahato Para Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur -6 District East Singhbhum 6.M/s Canara Motors through its Manager,Md. Nehaluddin Khan son of late Murtaza Khan, resident of Sharma Plot, Barinagar, Telco, Jamshedpur-4, Dist. East Singhbhum 7.M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Through its Manager, Sachindra Prasad son of late Rameshwar Prasad, resident of H. no. 823 New Sitaramdera PO Agrico, District East Singhbhum 8.M/s. Chassis Care Centre through its Manager, Mr. Satnam Singh son of Mr. Gurmit Singh, resident of KL- 2/2 Road No. 18 Telco Colony, Jamshedpur -4 Telco Colony P.S. Telco District East Singhbhum 9.M/s M.N.Transport through its Manager, Md. Zaki Imam son of late Azfar Imam, resident of H. No.-59 Main Road Madarsa Plot, Barinagar Telco, Jamshedpur-4, District East Singhbhum 10.M/s Nirmal Transport through its manager, Mr. Om Prakash Singh son of Mr. Dadan Singh, resident of Zone No.-3E, Near Vijaya Garden, Birsanagar, jamshedpur-19, District East Singbhum 11.M/s Rishab Carriers through its Manager, Mr. Ajay Singh son of late SitalSingh, resident of Cross Road 2, House no. 9 Prakash Nagar, River view Telco, Jhamshedpur-4, District East Singhbhum 12.M/s All India Convoy Worker Union through its president Drivers, New Rest House P.O. Rahargora, P.S. Govindpur, District jamshedpur, Singhbhum 13.Telco Convory Drivers Mozdoor Sangh through its President, New Rest House Jojobera/Telco PO Rahargora P.S. Govindpur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. .… … ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi A. Narayan, Sr. Advocate. Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate. For the Resp-RPFC : Ms. Banani Verma, Advocate For the Tata Motors : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate For the Intervener : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate. Mr. Siddartha Roy, Advocate. ------ 04/ Dated:

20. h October, 2016 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: I.A. No. 7119 of 2016 This application has been filed by the workmen, namely, Swarup Singh & Simon Peter for impleading them as party respondent nos. 14 and 15. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Intervener submitted that the applicants are the convoy drivers and are the beneficiaries of the Provident fund amount, hence, they are necessary party to be added in the case at hand. It has further been submitted that in the earlier round of litigations also they were made party-respondents. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Regional Provident fund commissioner do not raise serious dispute to the prayer made by the applicant-intervener. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the workmen, namely, Swarup Singh & Simon Peter are directed to be impleaded as party-respondent nos. 14 and 15 in array of respondents. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7119 of 2016 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 3828 of 2016 By this application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for stay of further proceeding initiated by the respondents under Section 7 of the Employees Provident Fund Act including the operation of summons dated 26.05.2016. From perusal of record, it appears that in pursuance to summon dated 26.05.2016 the petitioner took part in proceeding. Hence, the instant Interlocutory Application is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Learned counsels appearing for the parties conceded to the fact that the petitioner took part in proceeding on date fixed i.e. 21.09.2016, as mentioned in summon dated 26.05.2016. Hence, I.A. No. 3828 of 2016 stands dismissed as infructuous. I.A. No. 6667 of 2016 In the instant, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed that during pendency of the instant writ application, the respondent no. 1 be restrained from proceeding further in the matter. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the instant writ application, the petitioner was initially summoned to appear before respondent no. 1 on 21.09.2016, on which date, the petitioner appeared through its lawyer and requested to await till final decision is taken in the instant writ application. But, respondent no. 1 proceeded in the matter and next date is fixed on 26.10.2016 for assessment of dues. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the respondent no. 1 is permitted to proceed further in the matter, the instant writ petition shall become infructuous. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the newly added intervener- respondent nos. 14 and 15 also vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and sought four weeks' time to file reply to the I.A. No. 6667 of 2016. Considering the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and newly added intervener- respondent nos. 14 and 15, the further proceeding in the matter is stayed till next date of hearing i.e. 24.11.2016. W.P. (S) No. 641 of 2016 Issue notice to the respondent nos. 3 to 13 in the Stay matter (I.A. No. 6667 of 2016) as well as in the main application, by registered post with A/D, for which requisites etc must be filed within a week. Post this case on 24.11.2016. In the meantime, the parties may exchange their respective affidavits. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //