LexMARATHWADA GRAMIN BANK KARAMCHARI SANGHATANA AND ANOTHER versus MANAGEMENT OF MARATHWADA GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 269 MARATHWADA GRAMIN BANK KARAMCHARI A SANGHATANA AND ANOTHER . v. MANAGEMENT OF MARATHWADA GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 7766 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 8 ·c Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: s. 12 - Liability of employer to pay provident fund - Held: Employer is under an obligation to pay provident fund to its employees in accordance with the statutory scheme - Employer cannot be compelled to pay the . D amount in excess of its statutory liability for all times to come just because it had paid provident fund in excess of its statutory liability for sometime. Respondent-Bank was established in 1976. The E provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 became applicable to the respondent bank from . 1.9.1979. According to the respondent bank, it meticulously complied with .the provisions of the Scheme till 31.8.1981. Thereafter, the respondent bank formed its F own trust and framed its own Scheme for payment of provident fund to its employees. According to that · Scheme of the bank, the employees were getting provident fund in excess of what was en'visaged under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The Regional . Provident Fund Commh;sioner exempted the respondent ·bank from complying with the statutory provisions of the Scheme with effect' from . 1.9.1981 and permitted the respondent ban·k to pay G 269 H 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R. A provident fund. to its employees according to its own Scheme. The respondent bank contributed provident fund to its employees as per its own Scheme for the period from 1.9.1981 to 31.8.1993. 8 On 14.10.1991, the said exemption/relaxation granted to the respondent bank was withdrawn and cancelled and the respondent bank was directed to implement the provisions of the statutory Scheme. Despite cancellation of exemption, the respondent bank continued to make C payment of provident fund in accordance with the earlier Scheme till 31.8.1993.0n account of huge accumulated losses, the respondent-Bank decided to discontinue contribution of provident fund in excess of its statutory liability with effect from 1.11.1998 and issued a notice of change under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, D 1947. The Commissioner issued a letter informing the respondent bank that it cannot withdraw the benefit of paying matching employer's share without any limit to wage ceiling and directed it to continue extending the E same benefit as was granted prior to 01.11.1998. The reference of dispute was made to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the action of the respondent bank to reduce the contribution of the provident fund or to put a ceiling on the provident fund F was not justified and also directed that the workmen would continue to draw the benefit of the prevailing practice of contribution of Employees Provident Fund without any ceiling. The respondent bank filed a writ petition before the G High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that it was the express term of employment that the contribution of the bank would be in accordance with the provisions of the 1952 Act. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court. H MARATHWADA GRAMIN BANK KARAMCHARI SANGHATANA v. MNGT. OF 271 MARATHWADA GRAMIN BANK Dismissing the appeals, the Court A HELD: .1. Owing to huge accumulated losses of the respondent bank, the bank though continued to pay a~cording to the provisions of the statutory Scheme, but discontinued payment of provident fund in excess of its 8 statutory liability. The respondent bank is under an obligation to pay provident fund to its employees in accordance with the provisions of statutory Scheme. The respondent bank cannot be compelled to pay the amount in excess of its statutory liability for all times to come just C because it had formed its own trust and started paying provident fund in excess of its statutory liability for some time. The appellants were certainly entitled to provident fund according to statutory liability of the respondent bank. The respondent bank never discontinued its contribution towards provident fund according to the D provisions of the statutory Scheme. The view which was taken by the High Court was just, fair, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the 1952 Act. Therefor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.