9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are also situated in Faridabad. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third Respondent, who is a former employee of the school, also stated that it would be more convenient for her to pursue the proceedings before the Delhi High Court as opposed to the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the parties are all situated at Faridabad and since the Delhi High Court has, as a matter of principle followed its own earlier decision and come to the conclusion that it had territorial jurisdiction, but declined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground of forum non-convenience, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and to restore the procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompass. The first Respondent issued a notice to show cause to the Appellant on 20 July 2010 to explain why the provisions of the EPF Act would not be applicable to it. An order was passed on 21 July 2010 in regard to the applicability of the EPF Act to the Appellant. The order was assailed by the Appellant before the EPFAT, Delhi in ATA No. 620(16) of 2010. In December 2010, the first Respondent issued a notice Under Section 7A of the EPF Act to commence a statutory enquiry against the Appellant. The EPFAT dismissed the appeal on 16 September 2011. On 13 October 2011, the Appellant voluntarily applied for coverage under the EPF Act before the Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad on the ground that its employee strength had reached 20 in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated in Faridabad, Haryana. Likewise, the second and third Respondents are also situated in Faridabad. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third Respondent, who is a former employee of the school, also stated that it would be more convenient for her to pursue the proceedings before the Delhi High Court as opposed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the parties are all situated at Faridabad and since the Delhi High Court has, as a matter of principle followed its own earlier decision and come to the conclusion that it had territorial jurisdiction, but declined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground of forum non-convenience, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
