STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (IN APPEAL NO.301 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 27.08.2010 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 1. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director). 2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 3. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Managing Director. ……Appellants. Versus1. Sh. Paramjeet Singh son of Sh. Gurmit Singh R/o Vill. Balali, Tehsil and Distt. Mohali. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.58, Sector 12, New Mini Sectt. Karnal. ....Respondents. Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for the appellants. Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.2. (APPEAL NO.313 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 06.09.2010 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.58, Sector 12, New Mini Sectt. Karnal. ……Appellant. Versus1. Sh. Paramjeet Singh son of Sh. Gurmit Singh R/o Vill. Balali, Tehsil and Distt. Mohali. 2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director. 3. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh. 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan. 5. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Managing Director. 6. JCT Electronics Ltd., A-32, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Directors. ....Respondents. Argued by: Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for respondents No.2 to 5. Sh. Subhash Chopra, Assistant Manager for respondent No.6. (APPEAL NO.527 OF 2009) Date of Institution: 29.09.2009 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 Sh. Harnail Singh son of Sh. Lekh Raj R/o Vill. Chaju Majara, Post Office Landran, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali. ……Appellant. Versus1. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director. 2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh. 3. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan. 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Gneral Manager. 5. JCT Electronics Ltd., A-32, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its President. 6. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.5-8, Sector 12, (New Mini Secretariat) Karnal (HR) – 132001. ....Respondents. Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for respondents No.1 to 4. Sh. Subhash Chopra, Assistant Manager for respondent No.5. Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.6. (APPEAL NO.616 OF 2009) Date of Institution: 30.10.2009 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 1. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director. 2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh. (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 3. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan. (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Managing Directors. ……Appellants. Versus1. Sh. Harnail Singh son of Sh. Lekh Raj R/o Vill. Chaju Majara, Post Office Landran, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.5-8, Sector 12, (New Mini Secretariat) Karnal (HR) – 132001. ....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for the appellants. Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.2. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING MEMBER. 1. Vide this common order, we are disposing of the following four appeals filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and arising out of two different impugned orders dated 23.7.2010 passed in complaint case No.916 of 2009 and dated 18.9.2009 passed in complaint case No.289 of 2009 by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals:- Appeal No. | Complaint No. | Appellants | Respondents. | 301/2010 | 916/2009 | M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. & others. | Sh. Paramjit Singh and another. | 313/2010 | 916/2009 | The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. | Sh. Paramjeet Singh. | 527/2009 | 289/2009 | Sh. Harnail Singh. | M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. & others. | 616/2009 | 289/2009 | M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. & others. | Sh. Harnail Singh and another. |
2. The facts are culled out from Complaint Case No.916 of 2009 filed by Paramjeet Singh, which was allowed by the learned District Forum directing OPs No.1 to 4 (appellants in F.A. No.301 of 2010) to pay to the complainant the employee’s and employer’s share @Rs.592/- per month from the date of joining of the complainant with them i.e. June 2004 till the date of his leaving the OP organization in May 2006; Rs.40,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. It also directed OP No.5 (appellant in F.A. No.313 of 2010) to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service in not properly supervising and monitoring the EPF account of the complainant and to decide the proceedings initiated by them against OPs No.1 to 4 u/s 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and M.P. Act, 1952 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The order was directed to be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which interest @18% per annum from 1.7.2009 till date of actual payment was ordered to be paid to the complainant besides litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Sh. Paramjeet Singh (complainant) was enrolled with OPs No.1 to 4 for doing the job as Security Guard in the year 2004. He was employed at the salary of Rs.2470/- p.m. out of which Rs.296.40 (12%) and Rs.30/- were deducted respectively towards EPF and ESI respectively. It was averred that OPs No.1 to 4 were required to deposit the said amount with EPF Authorities by adding an equal share from their own. According to the complainant, he served OP No.6 through OPs No.2 and 3 on contractual basis and as such, his salary was being disbursed through OPs No.2 and 3. The complainant approached OPs No.2 and 3 for providing him the details of the EPF, which was deposited by them with OP No.5 but nothing was done. His allegation was that despite approaching OPs No.1 to 4 so many times, they did not provide the complete statement of account regarding deductions done by them towards EPF every month as well as total amount of EPF accumulated in his account till date. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice upon OPs No.1 to 4 but to no avail. Alleging non deposit of the amount deducted towards PF contribution every month by OPs No.1 to 4 with the concerned PF Commissioner to be as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint. 4. OPs No.1 to 4 in their reply admitted that the complainant was an employee of OPs but no assurance was given to him by them as regard depositing as well as of deduction of EPF. It was pleaded that the complainant never approached them to provide the detail of the PF account and statement of the PF account etc. As per the OPs, the complainant was supplied all possible information except the information relating to the rate/amount of the interest on the PF contribution. These OPs next asserted that the PFC i.e. OP No.5 itself had laid down the rules and regulations whereby the employer was required to attest the PF withdrawal form for withdrawal of PF or any part thereof so that unnecessary hindrances are waived off and the PFC could exercise the procedure without any delay or demure. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, these OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. OP No.5 in its separate reply pleaded that M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.4), Panchkula was under a statutory obligation to deposit the EPF amount pertaining to all the employees including the complainant. It was next pleaded that OP No.4 was covered under the EPF Act w.e.f. 1.1.2001 and bound to deposit the Provident Fund accumulations of the employee with OP No.5. As per this OP, proceedings under Section 7-A of the EPF and the Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 for determining the outstanding dues had been initiated and a sum of Rs.1,02,539/- had already been assessed and determined to be deposited by OP No.4 out of Rs.30,82,510/-. Pleading no deficiency on its part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 6. OP No.6 in its separate reply admitted that the complainant was an employee of OPs No.2 and 3 and was appointed by M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. It was pleaded that the payment of salary and PF deductions and contributions were made by OPs No. 2 and 3 with OP No.5. OP No.6 also pleaded that OPs No. 2 and 3 used to furnish copy of Challans for deposit of provident fund deductions and contribution to show that the provident fund deduction of the employee and employer’s contribution had been deposited by them with the Provident Fund Commissioner. It was asserted by OP No.6 that the Complainant did not bring to its notice any complaint made by him to the Provident Fund Commissioner in respect of non-deposit of the said amount by OPs No.1 to 4 with OP No.5. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 7. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 23.7.2010 as detailed above in the opening para of this order. 9. The OPs have filed two separate appeals bearing FA No.310 and 313 both of 2010 challenging the impugned order dated 23.7.2010 passed in CC No.916 of 2009 whereas the rests two appeals bearing FA No.616 of 2009 and 527 of 2009 have been filed by the OPs - M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. on one hand and the complainant Sh. Harnail Singh on the other hand. The OPs have filed the appeals for setting aside the impugned orders whereas Sh. Harnail Singh has filed appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum. 10. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the written arguments. 11. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the points in issue have already been dealt with and settled by this Commission vide order dated 11.9.2009 passed in Appeal No.226 of 2009 filed by one Sh. Ravinder Singh whose complaint was allowed by the learned District Forum. 12. The learned counsel for the OPs/appellants first took an objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Fora on the ground that the OPs i.e. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. did not have any branch office at Chandigarh and no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. As per Paras No.3 to 5 of the complaint, wages to him were being paid by OPs No.2 and 3 and the EPF contribution was deducted from his wages by OPs No.2 and 3 who were duty bound but failed to deposit the same with OP No.5. This fact is admitted by OP No.6 also. Both these OPs have their office at Chandigarh where the deductions were made and default was committed giving rise to cause of action. When the learned counsel for the complainants pointed out the address of Chandigarh of opposite parties No.2 and 3 submitted by them before the appropriate authority, thereupon counsel for the OPs gave up his argument on the point of territorial jurisdiction. 13. The learned counsel for the OPs/appellants thereafter put up three fold arguments, firstly, there was no deficiency in service on the part of any of the contesting OPs, secondly that since OP No.5 had already initiated the proceedings U/S 7-A of the Employes Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 against OPs No.1 to 4, therefore, there could not have been any deficiency in service qua OP No.5 and lastly, that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is on the higher side. These three issues are the same as we have already settled in the case of Ravinder Singh (Supra). So, these three issues are being decided in the same terms as in the case of Sh. Ravinder Singh (Supra) as under:- 14. So far as the first issue as regards deficiency in service on the part of OPs/appellants is concerned, it is well established rather admitted fact on file that OPs No.1 to 4 had given employment to the complainants, so, it was their duty to ensure the subscription towards provident fund, which was being deducted from their wages. It is further established from record that initially, the complainants had full faith in their employers but a suspicion arose, when they failed to furnish the details of their accounts inspite of their asking time and again. When complainants approached OP No.5, there also they did not get any satisfactory response. It was only when complainants had filed their respective complaints in July 2009 before the District Forum, OP NO.5 realized that the mischief of not depositing their share by OPs NO.1 to 4 has come to light. It was only then just for giving an impression of taking action that a notice/letter dated 21.8.2009 was issued by OP No.5 to OPs NO.1 to 4 for making payment of their dues. Prior to filing of the complaint, no steps whatsoever were taken by OP NO.5 against OPs NO.1 to 4 for realizing the amount deducted from the wages of complainants and their own contribution towards the provident fund payable under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. A perusal of the file and annexure R-1 issued in August , 2009 shows that OPs NO.1 to 4 were not depositing subscription since January 2001 and they were asked only in 2009 as to why the aforesaid subscriptions were not being paid by them as required under the E.P.F.Act. Further a perusal of annexure R-4 which is a letter issued in February,2009 indicates that the establishment of OPs NO.1 to 4 was in existence on 1.1.2001 and the E.P.F. Act was also applicable from that very date. All this goes a long way to show that OPs NO.1 to 4 and OP NO.5 were bound to ensure that the subscriptions of complainants deducted form their salary were duly deposited in their accounts of provident fund. All this again goes a long way to show that the learned District Fora have rightly held that OPs NO.1 to 4 and OP NO.5 were hand in glove with each other in the misappropriation of the amounts deducted from the salary of complainants for a very long time as discussed above. 15. Now coming to the another limb of arguments that quashi-judicial proceedings were initiated by OP NO.5 against OPs NO.1 to 4, therefore, no relief could be granted under the Consumer Protection Act by the District Fora. This contention also fails to carry any conviction with us in as much as remedy under the Consumer Protection Act has been afforded in addition to other remedies already available to the complainants as envisaged under Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also to add here that complaints before the District Fora were instituted in July, 2009 whereas quashi-judicial proceedings were initiated by OP NO.5 just to show that some action is being taken in the matter, though earlier due to certain reasons best known to it, OPs NO.1 to 4 were being allowed to misappropriate the funds and subscriptions of complainants. It is further apparent from the record and the provisions as well as Rules 37 and 38 of the E.P.F. Act that the Commissioner of Provident Fund was required to take steps to ensure that the deductions and subscriptions made by the establishments are deposited well in time but in that behalf no efforts are shown to have been made well in time. As such, the learned District Forum has rightly observed in Para No.14 of the order that quasi judicial proceedings initiated by OP No.4 against OPs No.1 to 4 is just an eyewash. 16. Now dealing with the last contention of learned counsel for OPs/appellants with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by District Fora being on the hither side, we are of the considered view, that the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- to be paid by OPs No.1 to 4 and Rs.10,000/- by OP No.5 is adequate keeping in view the quantum of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants at the hands of the OPs/appellants. 17. Thus, in view of our above discussion, all the appeals bearing F.A. No.301, 313 both of 2010 and 616 of 2009 filed by OPs/appellants are dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- in each appeal. 18. Sh. Harnail Singh, complainant/appellant has also filed a separate appeal bearing F.A. No.527 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum. As we have already observed in the foregoing para that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is adequate enough to cater for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant, therefore, in the case of Sh. Harnail Singh, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is also quite reasonable and justified and the same is kept intact. This appeal also is dismissed. 19. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 10th January 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION (APPEAL NO.301 OF 2010) Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for the appellants. Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated the 10th day of January 2011. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal along with connected appeals bearing F.A. No.313 of 2010, 527 and 616 both of 2009 have been dismissed. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH(APPEAL NO.313 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 06.09.2010 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011The Regional Provident Commissioner, Bharvishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.58, Sector 12, New Mini Sectt. Karnal. ……Appellant. Versus- Sh. Paramjeet Singh son of Sh. Gurmit Singh R/o Vill. Balali, Tehsil and Distt. Mohali.
2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director. 3. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 5. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Managing Director. - JCT Electronics Ltd., A-32, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Directors.
....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for respondents No.2 to 5. Sh. Subhash Chopra, Assistant Manager for respondent No.6. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.301 of 2010 titled ‘M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Sh. Paramjeet Singh and another’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 10th January 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBERAd/- STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH(APPEAL NO.527 OF 2009) Date of Institution: 29.09.2009 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 Sh. Harnail Singh son of Sh. Lekh Raj R/o Vill. Chaju Majara, Post Office Landran, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali. ……Appellant. Versus1. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director. 2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh. 3. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan. 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Gneral Manager. 5. JCT Electronics Ltd., A-32, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its President. 6. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.5-8, Sector 12, (New Mini Secretariat) Karnal (HR) – 132001. ....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for respondents No.1 to 4. Sh. Subhash Chopra, Assistant Manager for respondent No.5. Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.6. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.301 of 2010 titled ‘M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Sh. Paramjeet Singh and another’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 10th January 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/- STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH(APPEAL NO.616 OF 2009) Date of Institution: 30.10.2009 Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 1. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., RZ-1A, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi (through its Managing Director. 2. M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Accounts Manager, Sh. Gurbachan Singh. (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 3. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., #625, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its M.D. and Regional Manager, Sh. H. S. Maan. (No such address exists – Correct Address is : SCO No.1(1st Floor), Sector 11, Panchkula). 4. M/s Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1, 1st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Managing Directors. ……Appellants. Versus1. Sh. Harnail Singh son of Sh. Lekh Raj R/o Vill. Chaju Majara, Post Office Landran, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, SCO No.5-8, Sector 12, (New Mini Secretariat) Karnal (HR) – 132001. ....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate along with Sh. Prahalad Bhatt, G.M. (Legal) for the appellants. Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.2. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.301 of 2010 titled ‘M/s. Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Sh. Paramjeet Singh and another’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 10th January 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
