LexMAFATLAL GROUP STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus REGIONAL COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MAFATLAL GROUP STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC. B c v. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND AND ORS. MARCH 29, 1994 [KULDIP SINGH, B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 : (As Amended by Amendment Act 16 of 1971). Section 6-A-Schedule Ill-Scheme framed under 'Employees Family Pension Scheme'-Validity of Employee's Family Pension Scheme, 1971 : D Para :r-New Pension SchemHntroduction of-Employees who were members of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme before March 1, 1971 given an option to become or not to become members of the Pension Scheme-Employees becoming members of the Provident Fund Scheme after March 1, 1971 not given such option-Whether discriminatory and violative E of Article 14. Para 34(D )-Whether contains salutary and obligatory prin- ciple-Benefits under the Scheme-TVhether should be approximate to and ' commensurate with the employees contribution. F In exercise of its powers under Section 6-A of the Provident Fnnds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Central Government framed a scheme called "The Employees' Family Pension Scheme" providing for family pension to the employees of establishments to which the Act applied. Clause (3) of the Scheme provides that every person who becomes a member of the Employee's Provident Fund Scheme on or after March 1, G 1971 shall automatically become a member of the Family Pension Fund Scheme. Under the scheme the existing members of the Employees' Provi- dent Fund Scheme (i.e. those who were members of E.P.F. Scheme prior to March 1, 1971) were given an option to come under the Family Pension Scheme or to stay out. However, such an option was not given to employees H who became members of the Employees' Provident Fund on or after March 184 ., • ~· - MAFATLALSTAFF ASSN. "·REGIONAL COMMR P.F 185 1, 1971. The validity of the Scheme was challenged before the Bombay High A Court and a Single Judge of the High Court held that the Scheme was violative of the equal protection clause in Article 14 because it was dis- criminatory in nature for the reason that it did not provide for an option to employees who became members of the provident Fund after March 1, 1971, while it gave such an option to the employees who were members of B the Provident Fund prior to the said date. On appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, however, the Division Bench upheld the validity of the Scheme. Against the decision of the Bombay High Court appeals were preferred in this Court contending, inter a/ia, that the manner in which the C Family Pension Scheme was being operated was in effect pr~judicial to the employees-members because the amount collected from them was far more . than the benefit provided to them. The deductions were being made on the basis of the present emoluments of the industrial employees while, for the purpose of calculating the pension and other benefits, the emoluments in force in 1971 were taken as the basis, with the result that while the D contribution of the employee was substantially high, the return to them and their family was negligible. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the complaint of discrimination by the appellants-petitioners is un- sustainable. Merely because the employees who were the members of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme before March 1, 1971 were given an option to become or not to become members of the Family Pension Scheme, E it does not follow that the employees who become members of the Provident F Fund Scheme on or after March 1, 1971 and who are not given such .option are discriminated against. (192-C; 190-H; 191-A] 1.2. The Scheme is a beneficial social legislation conceived with the intention of providing a safety net to the families of deceased employees - a safety net to prevent such families from sinking into the depths of poverty G and misery. Instead of ll'elcoming it, it is rather curious that it is being attacked by the very employees for whose benefit it is devised. Certainly any oddities and crudities in the working of the Scheme should be attacked and exposed with a view to set them right, but to attack the very Scheme is not called for. There is no substance in the said attack. (191-A-BJ H A B 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11994] 3 S.C.R. 1.3. The Scheme is a newly introduced one. Those
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.