SRI. SAPTHAGIRI TRANSPORT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has contended that an order was passed in proceedings dated 6.11.2017, under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, by the second respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ambattur, Chennai-37. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 22.11.2017.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the Presiding Officer is yet to be appointed for the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under the authority at

(3.) In view of the fact that the said Tribunal is not functioning, it is necessary to safe guard the interest of the writ petitioner at least up to the period, when the appeal and interim application are taken up for hearing.