Provided - Judgment Search Results

JoslIn Mfg. Co. Vs. Providence

Court: US Supreme Court

a business did so with notice that the extra-constitutional compensation provided for would not apply to him. In the difference between

The Assistant Provident Fund Vs. the Employees Provident Fund.

Court: Chennai

from the maximum to minimum. Para 32(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 is extracted hereunder:32A. Recovery of damages for

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,vi Vs. Employees Provident Fund ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

the lis. All his decisions are subject to the appeals provided under the statute. In Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail V. Special Director,

Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees Provident ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT502; 2005(83)DRJ647; [2006(108)FLR35]; (2006)IILLJ388Del

complete code by itself which along should govern the matters provided by it. On examination of the relevant provisions, if it

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees' Provident Fund App ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)2CALLT112(HC),(2006)IIILLJ192Cal

The admitted position is that no provision of law specifically provided for grant of interest to an establishment in such a

Central Provident Fund Vs. Central Provident Fund

Court: Delhi

employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay: Provided that where the Central Board is of the opinion that

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Employees Provident Fund App ...

Court: Kerala

“employees” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and so much so,

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Employees Provident Fund App ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

the lis. All his decisions are subject to the appeals provided under the statute. In Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail V. Special Director,

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. President (Presiding) Officer ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2001MP155; 2001(3)MPHT4

regard to the comments expressed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Learned counsel has drawn the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka Vs. Workmen represente ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1984SC1897; [1984(49)FLR433]; 1984LabIC1682; (1984)IILLJ503SC; 1984(2)SCALE422; 1984Supp(1)SCC418; [1985]1SCR816; 1985(17)LC121(SC)

by or under the authority of the Central Government as provided in Section 2(a) of the Act or not in order