S.B. COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMTIED ANISH ROY vs REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER AND ANR. — WPA/10511/2026

Case under Industrial Disputes Act ,1947 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 18th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0201812026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

07th May 2026

Filing Number

WPA/10362/2026

Filing Date

30-04-2026

Registration No

WPA/10511/2026

Registration Date

30-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

PROVIDENT FUND ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

18th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act ,1947 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

S.B. COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMTIED ANISH ROY

Respondent(s)

REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

07-05-2026

NEW MOTION

18-05-2026

NEW MOTION (GROUP - III)

Orders

18-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

Summary of WPA 10511/2026 The court stayed a recovery notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Regional P.F. Commissioner against S.B. Cold Storage Industries, finding it improper conduct that the authorities proceeded with recovery despite having notice of the petitioner's pending appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and despite the Tribunal lacking a regular Presiding Officer to hear the appeal. The court directed the respondent authorities to refrain from coercive action until the tribunal considers the appeal and stay application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WPA 10511/2026 The court stayed a recovery notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Regional P.F. Commissioner against S.B. Cold Storage Industries, finding it improper conduct that the authorities proceeded with recovery despite having notice of the petitioner's pending appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and despite the Tribunal lacking a regular Presiding Officer to hear the appeal. The court directed the respondent authorities to refrain from coercive action until the tribunal considers the appeal and stay application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case