DINESH
16 February 2016 at 11:06
I want to seek advise advise about letter petition. Is affidavit necessary in it, what should a laymen do when his affidavit is refused to be attested by oath stating absence of lawyer. Do such petition can be submitted by hand or are required to be send through post only.
CA Ronak Jain
14 February 2016 at 12:09
Please Help, I had applied for the trust and the trust is registered as Religious Trust Due to Religious Trust we are unable to get 80G exemption Certificate . We carried out charitable activities during the last three to four years. 80G exemption was rejected on the basis on some objects of Trust deed . After this rejection we communicate with Alibag Charity Commissioner and given application for remove religious object. The Assistant Charity Commissioner Raigad Region, Alibag Passed the order and accepted the changes. As per me IT Officer (Exemption) should consider the changes and accept the trust as charitable. But the officer told to terminate(cancel) the trust and form a new trust. My doubt is new trust will have same trust name and even pan number will be same. I think trust should be amended rather than cancelling and forming new trust. Please help me by any section or case law to proof
MArbudlang
05 February 2016 at 12:05
Whether prior approval of the state finance department is required to obtain to make the rule applicable in a particular state?
Lokesh
03 February 2016 at 17:34
I have filled Clerk grade exam form of Dept. Of Local Bodies in rajasthan but while during filling the form i am facing a problem that is..(E-mitra Payment Status Pending) but i have deposited fees through emitra portal and also have tokon No. Which is filled in the last stage of form but the last stage is not showing (Which is Register your Tokon No.) Then i call helpline number and email serval times but they will not give me proper reply and cut my call..afterthen i have filled another form.
But i want my previously filled form money. So How can i get my money.tell me your valuable suggestions please...
sachin agarwal
31 January 2016 at 14:12
This is the settled law that overtime allowances are excluded from basic wages in terms of the provident fund contribution under the act, 1952. Section 2(b) of the provident fund at has expressly excluded overtime allowances from the definition of basic wages under the provision of the act, 1952. There is genuine distinction between normal and additional working hours and such a distinction should not be made a device to deprive workers of the provident fund. Therefore, remuneration paid for additional working hours and payment of overtime allowance is not included in basic wages. That overtime has not been defined and therefore for the meaning of overtime or the definition one has to look into the dictionary meaning or the Precedents if any. According to Chambers, overtime would mean time employed in working beyond the regular hours and work done in such time of pay for such work and according to Webster law dictionary, means time in excess of the that limit or working time in excess of standard day or week. It is very much clear from the definition of various dictionaries and various opinions that overtime is something which is done not on time but thereafter.
Cases was rightly held that plucking of extra leaves within working hours was not overtime but overwork under time.
That it is also settled position that good work Reward is not overtime but overwork under time.
That the act, 1952 is for the purpose of socio economic object and the contributory provident fund scheme framed thereunder is provided for the benefits of the employees working in the factories, industries and establishments therefore the employees working there may have the economic security for his maintenance during his old-age after the retirement. Thus, the words and phrases used by the establishment for in the matter of payment of allowances, wages, etc are to be interpreted and understood so as to advance the benefits of these provisions of the bennevolent piece of legislation to the beneficiaries thereof.
sachin agarwal
31 January 2016 at 13:55
The 7A authority under section 7A of the act, 1952 is authorise to work for the benefits of the eligible employees for the benefits of provident fund contribution therefore the 7A authority can examine the illegalities of the provident fund contribution under the PF code allotted to the employer by the PF authority. Being a 7A authority, the authorities works as a question judicial authority therefore it is the obligation on the part of the authority to follow the rule of natural Justice at the time of hearing of both the parties where one of the party is the enforcement officer representative on behalf of the Department and second party the employer and any other appropriate person who is entitled to join the enquiry before the enquiry officer. The 7A authority after duly performed the obligation under section 7A of the act, 1952 can examine the applicability and determination of the PF dues for the benefits of eligible employees. It is the necessary ingredient of the enquiry to follow the rule of natural Justice and the used the power in accordance with the provision of settled law in the light of the various decisions of the appropriate appellate authority and Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. That the any person aggrieved from the impugned order passed by the 7A authority can move the appropriate application for the re-examination of the enquiry finalised by the 7A authority. Although there are so many limitations to move the review application under section 7B of the act, 1952 but the basic rules that the rule of natural Justice should be followed and the enquiry should be concluded in due compliance of the facts and circumstances as well as law in the right perspective for the due benefits of eligible employees. Although there is not a specified form to file an application for review under section 7B of the act, 1952 but certain grievances should be reflected under the settled law in the review application filed by the aggrieved person where the re-examination of the 7A enquiry can be reopen. The application under section 7B should be moved within a specified time as prescribed under the law and if the application is within a specified time then the reviewing authority should be issued the notice to the applicant and if the 7B authority dismissing the application without hearing the voice of the applicant is clearly violation of the principle of natural Justice.
The above discussion is the personal opinion of the author and therefore the discussion cannot be used for any illegal purpose.
sachin agarwal
31 January 2016 at 12:31
This is the settled law that in case the dues under the provident fund contribution for the certain employees is due from the part of the employer will be determined only with respect to those employees who are identifiable and whose entitlement can be proved on the evidence, and in the event the record is not available, it would not be obligated to explain its loss, or any adverse inference be drawn on this score.
Where the employer is engaged in the construction industry and in the said industry the employer has employed certain long-term employees for whom the provisions of the provident fund act, 1952 and a scheme thereunder are being followed regularly, yet there are certain casual workers who come to work at the construction sites of the employer for a address, then these work men not been identifiable and it is practically very difficult, in fact almost impossible, to comply with the requirements of the provident fund scheme in respect of such migrant labourers. Therefore, the order of the authority for provident fund contribution without a finding about identifiablity of the employees cannot be sustained.
That the conclusion is that if the identification of the employees for whom benefits of the product contribution is entitled to be made and it is not possible practically and almost impossible to collect the details of the proper identification of such unidentified employees, the order of the provident fund authority is unjustified and therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law because the provident fund contribution is not a tax but this is the fund for the benefits of eligible employees and if there is no proof of address of those eligible employees the benefits of the provident fund contribution cannot be handed over to the those eligible employees in accordance with the provision of law.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Dispute of shop with nagar palika nigam regarding leasehold right vs rent
Disputed Property
Shop No.21, of Nagar Palika Nigam, Rewa, District-Rewa (M.P.)
Shop Owner Manik Lal Khandelwal
History of Shop of NO. 21
A one floor building was constructed in the year 1991 by Rewa-Sudhar Nyas, Rewa, in which 41 shops in ground floors and 25 Advocate chambers in first floor were constructed in this building.
Out of 41 shops 32 shops were sold-out as leaseholder of 30 Years @ Rs. 100/- Per year.
In the year 1994 Rewa-Sudhar Nyas was merged in Nagar-Palika Nigam, Rewa.
Then in the year 1998, Nagar Palika Nigam, Rewa has invited an premium auction in news paper for auction of remaining 9 shops. In news paper conditions were written for auction that "Condition for auction shall be seen in the office".
By this premium auction my client Maniklal Khandel has paid advance Rs. 5000/- for entering in premium auction and got Shop No. 21 in auction.
Then after 6 Months client has paid remaining premium amount Rs. 29678.00 to Nagar Palika Nigam, Rewa.
Where it has been told by Office that you have to pay rent @ 200/- per month also.
My client said that in this complex all shops are in lease rent @ 100/- per year.
Then dispute begans here:-
1. Nagar Palika Nigam Says that clients has to pay monthly rent @200/- p.m. along with premium amount Rs. 34500/-.
2. My clients Says :- I have paid premium amount and I am owner as leaseholder as per previous all shops in this complex are in leasehold rights for 30 years.
You are kindly requested that give appropriate direction and any citation regarding in this case.