Court : Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh
1. The petitioner-Institution has filed this writ petition for quashing of orders dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure P-3), 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) and 8.1.2010 (Annexure P-6). The grievance raised in the petition is that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions of the Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") have been wrongly made applicable to the petitioner-Institution. As per the counsel, the petitioner-Institution has never employed more than 20 employees and this fact has not been rightly appreciated by the authorities under the provisions of the Act and so also the Appellate Authority.2. I have perused the impugned orders. This factual issue raised in regard to the number of people employed by the petitioner- Institution has been considered by the authorities under the Act and so also the Appellate Authority. The petitioner-Institution had submitted a list of 20 employees, duly signed by the employer, during the visit of Squad on 6.3.2003. Statements were recorded by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh
1. The petitioner-Institution has filed this writ petition for quashing of orders dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure P-3), 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) and 8.1.2010 (Annexure P-6). The grievance raised in the petition is that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions of the Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") have been wrongly made applicable to the petitioner-Institution. As per the counsel, the petitioner-Institution has never employed more than 20 employees and this fact has not been rightly appreciated by the authorities under the provisions of the Act and so also the Appellate Authority.2. I have perused the impugned orders. This factual issue raised in regard to the number of people employed by the petitioner- Institution has been considered by the authorities under the Act and so also the Appellate Authority. The petitioner-Institution had submitted a list of 20 employees, duly signed by the employer, during the visit of Squad on 6.3.2003. Statements were recorded by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh
1. The petitioners on their own solemnised their marriage on 1.11.2010 at Gurudwara Sri Tibbi Sahib, Village Khuda Ali Sher, Chandigarh. The copy of the marriage certificate (Annexure P-3), issued by the Head Granthi, Gurudwara Sri Tibbi Sahib, Village Khuda Ali Sher, Chandigarh and the photographs (annexure P-4) of the marriage have been placed on record. It is stated that on account of the marriage that has been solemnised, the petitioners apprehand danger to their life and liberty from respondents No.4 to 10. Respondents No.4 and 5 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.6 is the father's younger brother (uncle) of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.7 is a cousin of petitioner No.1. Respondents No. 8 & 9 are the parents of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.10 is the maternal uncle of petitioner No.2. They are upset with the CRM No.M-32495 of 2010 -2- marriage as the petitioners belong to different castes. The petitioners also submitted an application dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The Punjab State through Junior Engineer, Office of the Administrator, Urban Estate, Punjab, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) has filed the complaint against the petitioner and others alleging commission of offences under Section 11(i) read with Section 3(i) and Section 8(i) of Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (`Act' for short). It is alleged that the accused in the said case had sold plots in a colony which results in violation of the provisions of the Act. The case is still pending. The present petition for grant of permission to go to Norway for the period from 7.11.2010 to 10.1.2011 during the pendency of the complaint has been filed. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that earlier the petitioner was exempted from appearance on 2.4.2002 and thereafter she did not appear and was declared a proclaimed offender on 2.9.2005.2. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh
1. The petitioners on their own have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 31.10.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was solemnized at Mahakali Mandir, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. The marriage certificate (Annexure-P.3 colly.) and photographs (Annexure-P.3 colly.) taken at the time of marriage have been placed on record. On account of the marriage that has been solemnized the petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondent No.6 who is the father of petitioner No.1 as the marriage was without his consent. The petitioners, therefore, submitted an application dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-P.4) to respondents No.2 and 3 for protecting their life and liberty from the parents of petitioner No.1. Despite the said application the threat to them persists. It is submitted that both the petitioners are major. The year of birth of petitioner No.1 is 1985 and she is 25 years of age, however, the petitioner No.1 has no document regarding proo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh
1. The petitioners on their own have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves. The marriage was solemnized on 27.10.2010 at Maharishi Balmiki Mandir, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. The marriage was performed under the auspices of Arya Samaj Samiti. The certificate of marriage (Annexure-P.3) issued by the Arya Samaj Samiti and the photographs (Annexure-P.4) have been placed on record. On account of the marriage that has been solemnized the petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty from the father (respondent No.4) of Ekta (petitioner No.2). The petitioner No.2-Ekta also submitted an application (Annexure-P.5) to the SHO, Police Station,Sector 39, Chandigarh (respondent No.3) seeking protection for herself and her husband (petitioner No.1). However, despite the said application the threat to the petitioners persists, therefore, they have filed the present petition.2. It is submitted that both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per the National T...
Tag this Judgment!