FAIZ TALKIES Versus CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION

ORDER

1. This revision application is directed against the orders of the Civil Judge passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C:P.C. rejecting the plaint of the applicant and the second order of D.J. rejecting the appeal of the applicant on 1‑3‑86.

2. The applicant is a Cinema being run at Shahdadpur and the respondent No.2 had sought to register it under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976. The petitioner had taken exception to the same as it was not employing more than 8 employees. However, the respondent No.2 without any notice to the petitioner issued a demand notice for Rs.21,000. The petitioner again objected to the same and also filed an appeal before the Manager, Board of, Trustees. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner also filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The said was resisted by the respondents and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. made and the plaint was rejected. The appeal of the applicant failed.

3. Evidently the two orders appear to be eminently justified as the forum for deciding the question as to whether the plaintiff /applicant is liable to be registered under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act or not is obviously the respondent No.2 and the Civil Court cannot assume that jurisdiction. This revision application is therefore dismissed as incompetent.

4. Mr. Faizanul Haq has, however, requested that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner before them. Although I am not competent in this revision to give direction of this sort sought by the petitioner but still I would E express a wish that if any appeal has been filed by the petitioner against its registration or demand of Deptt. then the same should be disposed of by the competent authority within a reasonable time as otherwise it would look very odd that the petitioner who is feeling aggrieved will not be having any relief from any person.

5. A.A. /F‑37/ K Revision dismissed.