AMBASSADOR SECURITY AND DETECTIVE SERVICES Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRIBUNAL/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.Sunilkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Joy Thattil Ittoop, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Ext.P1 is an order under Section 40B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner, it is stated by Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, has availed the remedy of appeal and obtained stay order from the appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioner prefers to work out the remedy availed against Ext.P1. Hence the prayer is not pressed. Statement is placed on record.

(3.) Mr.R.Sunil Kumar substantially re-iterates the ground raised in the writ petition and in support of his contention that the petitioner is entitled for hearing an opportunity before Ext.P4 order is made relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Arcot Textile Mills Limited v Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others, (2013) 16 SCC 1. He relies on the following paragraph: