PRESIDENT FINANCE v. NEW DELHI – 110 061

Judgment

#3. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HUDCO COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 061. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 & 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES PF SCHEME, 1952, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HIT BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECTION OF THE EPF & MP ACT 1952 AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME ANNEXURE-B & ANNEXURE–C; QUASH THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY DATED 21.03.2012 RECEIVED FROM THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. IN W.P. No.11/2012 BETWEEN: UE DEVELOMENT INDIA PVT. LTD., QUORUM, #85, 7TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034 REP. BY ITS HEAD OF LEGAL MISS GAY SAW GHIN LYE. ... PETITIONER - 3 - (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI M.V. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE AND SRI KRISHAR SOMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:

#3. THE UNION OF INDIA MINITRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKATHI BHAVAN TAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA BHAVISHY NIDHI BHAVAN, POST BOX NO.20146, NO.13, RAJARAMMOHANROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (KARNATAKA & GOA). ASSITANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (COMP.) BHAVISHY NIDHI BHAVAN POST BOX NO.20146, NO.13, RAJARAMMOHANROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) SCHEME, 2010 NOTIFICATION DATED 03.09.2010 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 11.09.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS DISCRIMINATORY ARBITRARY, VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND INCAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ETC. IN W.P. No.1939/2010 BETWEEN: DECCAN CARGO & EXPRESS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, RAHEJA PARAMOUNT, - 4 - 138, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL MRS. VALLABA G. VASANTHA. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. REVATHY ADINATH NARDE AND SRI K.S. MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

#3. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, TAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPTD. BY THE SECRETARY. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA BHAVISHY NIDHI BHAVAN, POST BOX NO.20146, NO.13, RAJARAMMOHANROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (KARNATAKA & GOA). MR. MEHABOOB GANIYAR, ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (COMP.), BHAVISHY NIDHI BHAVAN, POST BOX NO.20146, NO.13, RAJARAMMOHANROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (THIRD AMENDMENT) SCHEME, 2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY, VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF - 5 - WRIT; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 14.12.2009 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. IN W.P. No.4051/2012 BETWEEN:

#4. CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NO.4 & 20, MANCHENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064, REPRESETNED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MRS. SHWETA SASTRI. MR. SHANE KELLS 49 YEARS, HEAD OF SCHOOL, CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NO.4 & 20, MANCHENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. MR. JOHN NIGEL GLEAVE 54 YEARS, TEACHER, CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NO.4 & 20, MANCHENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. MR. SCOTT ZEUCH 41 YEARS, MUSIC TEACHER, CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NO.4 & 20, MANCHENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. - 6 -

#2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION, NO.10, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED CARRIED OUT V.C.O. DATED 10/02/2012) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC. IN W.P. No.8545/2012 BETWEEN:

#2. CPG CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD., #21/30, PRESTIGE CRAIG HOUSE CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE- 01, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. RAIMI BIN A RAHIM. MR. RAIMI BIN A RAHIM S/O. MR. A. RAHIM BIN HASHIM, AGED 50 YEARS, CPG CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD., #21/30, PRESTIGE CRAIG HOUSE, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY-LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. ... PETITIONERS - 7 -

#2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA–83 OF THE EPF SCHEME, 1952, AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE–14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952. IN W.P. No.9188/2012 BETWEEN:

#2. MANTRI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.41, MANTRI HOUSE, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. JONATHAN YACH S/O. MR. SOLM YACH, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT 260/9, PALM MEADOWS, HAL ROAD, VARTHUR, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 006. (BY SRI H. SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE AND SMT. DEEPTHI C.R., ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENTS HRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, TAFI MARG, NEW DELHI. ... PETITIONERS - 8 -

#2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE REGION BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (3RD AMENDMENT) SCHEME 2008 AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY & UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 28.12.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC. IN W.P. No.27064/2012 BETWEEN: ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., LEVEL-II & III, SALARPURAI TOUCHSTONE, MARATHHALLI, SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 103. REPRESENTED BY VENUGOPALAN VENKATARAMAN DIRECTOR.

(BY SRI K.N. VASUKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY-LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. ... PETITIONER - 9 -

#3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HUDCO COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 061. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) EMPLOYEES THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 OF THE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HIT BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF & MP ACT, 1952 AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2012 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. PROVIDENT SCHEME, 1952, FUND IN W.P. No.28000/2012 BETWEEN: SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD., REGISTERED & CORPORATE OFFICE SARJAUR–MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST, BANGALORE – 560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT SATISH .J KAMATH. (BY SRI K.N. VASUKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, ... PETITIONER - 10 - SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HUDCO COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 061. ... RESPONDENTS

#3. (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 OF THE EPF SCHEME, 1952, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HIT BY ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF & MP ACT 1952 AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY DATED 22.06.2012 RECEIVED FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. IN W.P. No.36160/2012 BETWEEN:

#2. M/S. TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.33 & 34, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DIST. – 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. YASUNORI WATANABE. MR. A. MURALI S/O. MR. R. ATHMANATHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, ‘SHREE MANGALADEVI’, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, EWS LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE EAST, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085. ... PETITIONERS - 11 - (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY-LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SUMMONS DATED 07.08.2012, AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT; DECLARE THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT HAS NO AUTHORITY & JURISDICTION TO SUMMON THE DETAILS OF GLOBAL SALARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS (SALARY PAID ABROAD, IF ANY); QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 & PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE-14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AND ETC. IN W.P. No.37835/2012 BETWEEN: M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD., ON SITE SUPPLIER PARK, BUILDING NO.7, TOYOTA KIRLOSAKAR MOTORS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.1, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 109 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. M. YAMAMOTO. ... PETITIONER - 12 - (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PARA–83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING HIT BY ARTICLE-14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AND ETC. IN W.P. No.39016/2012 BETWEEN: OZONE PROPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, 51/7-2, RATHNA AVENUE, CIVIL STATION, OFF: RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT–HR. (BY SRI K.N. VASUKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, ... PETITIONER - 13 - SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HUDCO COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 061. ... RESPONDENTS

#3. (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) EMPLOYEES THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 OF THE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL & HIT BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF & MP ACT, 1952 & STRIKE DOWN THE SAME; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2012 PASSED BY THE R2, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. PROVIDENT SCHEME, 1952, FUND IN W.P. No.39185/2012 BETWEEN: VALUE AND BUDGET HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD., HM STRAFFORD HOUSE, 29/4, 3RD FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, VASANTHNAGAR EXTN., OFF MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY. (BY SRI K.N. VASUKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI C.K. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER - 14 - AND:

#3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 003. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HUDCO COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 061. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) EMPLOYEES THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 OF THE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HIT BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF & MP ACT 1952 AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME; QUASH THE SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2012 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. PROVIDENT SCHEME, FUND 1952 IN W.P. No.39570/2012 BETWEEN:

#1. METRO CASH & CARRY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.26/3, INDUSTRIAL SUBURBS, ‘A’ BLOCK, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, WARD NO.9, BANGALORE – 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, - 15 -

#3. COMPENSATION & BENEFITS MS. P. NAGA KUMARI. ALEC JOHN BOOTH, S/O. MR. BRAIN BOOTH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5/5 – 5/5-1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 046. GUENTER KARI REDTENBACHER, S/O. KARI REDTENBACHER, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, UNIT 8A, 9TH FLOOR, BEARYS ACACIA LAKEVIEW, 1 OSBORNE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 042. (BY SRI ADITYA V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: ... PETITIONERS

#2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH 83 OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME; DECLARE PARAGRAPH 43A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME, 1995 AS - 16 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.09.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. IN W.P. No.42364/2012 BETWEEN: M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO.1, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, LEGAL, CSR & EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, MR. K. SRIKANTH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#3. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-II #570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY 26TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OP. SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA–83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION - 17 - SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING HIT BY ARTICLE–14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT 1952 AT ANNEXURE-C & D, ANNEXURE-A & B. IN W.P. No.45706/2012 BETWEEN: M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.21, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 109 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT HUMAN RESOURCE & ADMINISTRATION, MR. T.R. PARASURAMAN. (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

#2. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-II #570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY, 26TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OP., SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098. ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 & PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE-14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ALSO AS BEING ARBITRARY & ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AT - 18 - ANNEXURE-A, B, C & D DATED 01-10-2008, 01-10-2008 AND 03.09.2010 AND ETC. IN W.P. No.45770/2012 BETWEEN: M/S. TRANSYSTEM LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NO.20, TOYOTA TECHNO PARK, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 109 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER–HR MR. ARUN A.C. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II SRO, MYSORE ROAD NO.570, 26TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7-A OF THE EPF ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO THIS PETITION; DECLARE THAT R2 HAS NO AUTHORITY & JURISDICTION TO SUMMON THE DETAILS OF GLOBAL SALARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS (SALARY PAID ABROAD, IF ANY); QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952, & PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME, 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING HIT BY ARTICLE-14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & ALSO AS - 19 - ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AND ETC. IN W.P. No.46029/2012 BETWEEN: M/S. TOYOTA LOGISTIC KISHOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED TOYOTA TECHNO PARK, PLOT NO.20, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DIST. – 562 109 (PRESENTLY SHIFTED TO NEW PREMISES) “TLKI YARD”, TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS GATE NO.5, PLOT NO.1, BIDADI INDL. AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGAR (DISTRICT) BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, INDIA – 562 109 REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR MR. NAOHISA HOMMA. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER- II #570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY, 26TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OP. SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA 83 OF THE EPF SCHEME, 1952 AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME, 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING HIT BY ARTICLE–14 OF - 20 - THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AT ANNEXURE-A, B, C & D DATED 01.10.2008 AND 03.09.2010. IN W.P. No.47926/2012 BETWEEN: M/S. TOYOTA TECHNO PARK (I) PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.20, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DIST. – 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.TAKAYUKI TATSUTA. (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

#2. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-II #570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY, 26TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OP. SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098. ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY AIRTEL 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AT ANNEXURES-A, B, C & D AND ETC. - 21 - IN W.P. No.56837/2013 BETWEEN: M/S. SUNCHIRIN AUTOPARTS INDIA PVT. LTD. PLOT #25, NEW MUNICIPAL #5, KIADB, 3RD MAIN ROAD, I PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE – 560 058. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. HIDEKAZU YOSHITAKA. (BY SRI ANAND K.R., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:

#3. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SRO:S(1) F, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BANGALORE – 560 058. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952, AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE–14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AT ANNEXURE-G; CONSEQUENTLY, HOLD THAT THE ANNEX-G DATED - 22 -

28.11.2013 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO BE ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC. IN W.P. No.22507/2015 BETWEEN:

#1. M/S. MAHINDRA REVA ELECTRIC VEHICLES LTD., NO.112-E, BOMMASANDRA INDL. AREA, OFF. HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, SRI MAHESH BABU.

#2. SRI MAHESH BABU S/O. SRI SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, R/.AT FLAT NO.2D, JAINS SURABHI, NO.8, VASU STREET, KILPAUK, CHENNAI – 600 010. (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:

#2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR SHARM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVANA, ANNAPOONESHWARI COMPLEX, NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 068. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952, AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME - 23 - 1995, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE -1 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2014 (FORWARDING DATE 04.02.2014) VIDE ANNEXURE- G PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT; DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO REFUND OR ADJUST ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF RS.5,37,372/- MADE IN EXCESS AS REQUESTED IN ANNEXURE-M & N RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. IN W.P. No.15839/2019 BETWEEN:

#2. M/S. RECAERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, #28-C, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI-HAROHALLI MAIN ROAD, ABBANAKUPPE, BANGALORE – 562 109 REPRESENTED BY IS HEAD HR & LEGAL K.G. POOVANNA. SRI SANDESH SHETTY, S/O. SRI KARUNAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, #28-C, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI-HAROHALLI MAIN ROAD, ABBANAKUPPE, BANGALORE – 562 109. WORKING AS EXECUTIVE IN THE COMPANY FOR P1. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S. SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

#2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE-RAJAJINAGAR, #570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY, 26TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME - 24 - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI, BANGALORE – 560 098. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA-83 OF THE EPF SCHEME, 1952, AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME 1995, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE-14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952 AND ETC. IN W.P. No.19464/2021 BETWEEN:

#2. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PRIVATE LIMITED NO.7-12, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 2ND STAGE, GORGUNTEPALYA, YESHWANTHPUR, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 022. REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT–HR MR. ANTONY PEREIRA. MR. ANTONY PEREIRA S/O. MR. THOMAS PEREIRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VICE PRESIDENT–HR M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES NO.7-12, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 2ND STAGE, GORGUNTEPALYA, YESHWANTHPUR, TUMKUR, BENGALURU – 560 022. (BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY–LABOUR ... PETITIONERS - 25 - SHRAM SHAKI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

#2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.62, 3RD CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB II STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGSPC FOR R-1; SMT. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH PARA–83 OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952, AND PARA 43-A OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME 1995 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING HIT BY ARTICLE–14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO AS ILLEGAL BEING OPPOSED TO THE VERY OBJECT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952; QUASH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09.09.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. IN W.P. No.20560/2012 BETWEEN:

#3. NAFL’S TRUST, NAFL VALLEY, WHITEFIELD-SARJAPUR ROAD, NEAR DOMMASANDRA CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 562 125, REPT. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL BANGALORE, NAFL VALLEY, WHITEFIELD-SARJAPUR ROAD, NEAR DOMMASANDRA CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 562 125, REPTD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. MR. JOSEPH ANTONY DE METRO, ART TEACHER, AMERICAN CITIZEN, R/O. OF NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, - 26 -

#6. MR. ALAIN ANDRE ALFRED FAURE GERMAN FACULTY MEMBER BRITISH CITIZEN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MR. DARREN JONES, HEAD & COORDINATOR CREATIVE ARTS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MR. JONKHEER EUGENE FRANCOIS, NETHERLANDS CITIZEN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THE PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 6 ARE NOW RESIDING AT NAFL VALLEY, WHITEFIELD-SARJAPUR ROAD, NEAR DOMMASANDRA CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 562 125. (BY SRI GIRISH G.N., ADVOCATE AND SRI S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: ... PETITIONERS EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (EPFO), MINISTRY OF LABOUR, BHAVISHA NIDHI BHAVAN, NO.14, BHIKAIJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE PARAGRAPH (SECTION) 83 OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952 AS, ULTRA VIRUS OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 27 - O R D E R In all these petitions, petitioners who are the employers and the employees questioning the vires of para 83 introduced in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (“EPF Scheme” for short) and para 43A in Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (“Pension Scheme” for short), as wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional, basic ground on which the vires questioned is the same, as the order to be pronounced applies to all the petitions and hence, common order is passed.

#2. The Union of India, vide notification dated

01.10.2008, introduced para 83 in the EPF Scheme and further para 43A under the Pension Scheme covering international workers with effect from 01.10.2008. The prayer sought in all the writ petitions is to declare para 83 of the EPF Scheme and para 43A of the Pension Scheme, as unconstitutional and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and also as illegal opposed to the very object of the - 28 - Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the EPF & MP Act, 1952” for the sake of convenience) and consequently, to quash the orders passed by respondent No.2, seeking payment of contributions and in default to pay charges under the Act.

#3. Writ Petition Nos.11/2012, 1939/2010, 18486/2012, 27064/2012, 28000/2012, 36160/2012, 37835/2012, 39016/2012, 39185/2012, 42364/2012, 45706/2012, 45770/2012, 46029/2012, 47926/2012 and 56837/2013 are filed by the employers.

#4. Writ Petition Nos.4051/2012, 8545/2012, 9188/2012, 39570/2012, 22507/2015, 15839/2019, 19464/2021 and 20560/2012 are filed by the employers as well as employees.

#5. The grievance of the petitioners is that, under para 83 of the EPF Scheme, “international workers” are covered under the Act and Scheme, irrespective of their salary drawn by them. The employees other than the international workers, who draw exceeding Rs.15,000/- per - 29 - is outside the purview of the Scheme. The international workers do not work till retirement, they work only for a limited period and thus, requiring them to pay PF contribution on their entire global salary would cause irreparable injury. According to the petitioners, international workers required to pay EPF contributions is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners - the employers and the employees, the provisions introduced in the Scheme are arbitrary and discriminatory.

#6. Statement of objections filed by the Union of India - respondent No.1: It is contended that, the Union of India has effected changes to the Act by making special provisions for different types of workers. The following are the special provisions made by the respondent for different types of workers from time to time: (I) With effect from 31.12.1956 para 80 was inserted in the Scheme to make a special provision in the Scheme in - 30 - the case of Newspaper Establishment and Newspaper Employees. The said Scheme shall, in its application to Newspaper Establishments and Newspaper Employees, as defined in Section 2 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. (II) In the year 1981, para 81 was inserted in the Scheme to make special provisions in the case of Cine- Workers. The Scheme Shall, in its application to Cine- Workers as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Cine- Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 (50/1981) (“Cine-Workers Act” for short). (III) In the year 1999, para 82 was inserted in the Scheme to make special provisions in respect of an employee, who is a person with a disability under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1/1996) and under - 31 - the National Trust for Welfare of a person with Artisan Cerebral Palsy Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44/1999) respectively. (IV) It is contended that the EPF Act was duly amended in the year 2008 under which, para 83 was inserted into the EPF Scheme to extend the coverage of international workers under the EPF Scheme and further introduced para 43A under the Employees Pension Scheme and the Scheme was given effect from 11.09.2010, insofar as it relates to international workers. According to the respondent, the Government of India finalized a bilateral Social Security Agreement (“SSA”) with Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxemburg, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands effective on several dates respectively. As a result of the said reciprocal agreements with the above countries, the Government of India extended the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, and the Scheme to the international workers. - 32 - (V) According to the Union of India, keeping in view the interest of international workers, in order to honour bilateral agreements with foreign countries, the Scheme has been amended. According to them, the intention of the Parliament to amend the Scheme is to ensure that no person can be deprived of social security benefits and also no Indian deputed to work outside the country should not be deprived of the benefits. It is further stated that, to protect the rights of the Indian workers on their posting in the overseas countries for a limited period were required to make mandatory social security contributions in accordance with the laws of those countries. The contribution so deducted from the salaries of Indians was a loss for every worker as the benefits, according to the laws of the countries of their posting, are generally payable on completion of the minimum qualifying period of contribution or residence, which is normally ten years or more. An Indian worker deputed for a limited period of five years or so is generally less than the minimum qualifying period. Therefore, Indian workers, ever - 33 - after remittance of social security contribution in the host countries, are not entitled to any social security benefits and with a view to protecting such rights of such migrant workers, the Government of India decided to introduce the statutory provisions in the EPF Scheme and the Pension Scheme in respect of the international workers and as per the amended provisions, an international worker from an SSA country is entitled to withdraw his provident fund accumulation on seizing to be an employee in an establishment covered under the Act. (VI) It is further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner that international workers can withdraw the full amount standing to their credit in the fund only on attaining the age of 58 years or on retirement on account of permanent and total incapacity for work due to bodily or mental infirmity has been resolved in respect of international workers being deployed in India from SSA countries, further stating that, an international worker from an SSA country is entitled to withdraw his provident fund accumulation on - 34 - ceasing to be an employee in an establishment covered under the Act. (VII) It is further stated that the Union of India took several steps in negotiating bilateral agreements on social security - SSA with other countries and the benefits available to the international workers on Indian soil and the benefits enjoyed by the Indian workers on foreign soil are generally negotiated based on the reciprocity and these can be broadly understood from the provisions of bilateral SSAs between the countries. Thus, it is contended by the Union of India that international workers being a special class, and in order to fulfill international obligations, the Government of India has made special provisions for international workers, which is distinct from employees covered under the Act and that the classification made is intelligible differentia which has rational relations to the object sought to be achieved, the Constitutional validity of the Act based on Article 14 is unsustainable, more so, as Article 14 applies to Indian Citizens and not for foreigners in general. - 35 -

#7. Statement of objections filed by respondent No.2: The statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 - the authority who has passed an order under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is similar to that of respondent No.1- Union of India.

#8. Sri S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel along with Sri Somashekar, learned counsel; Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel along with Sri Rajendra M.S., learned counsel; Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel along with Sri M.V. Sundararaman and Sri Krishar Somaiah, learned counsel; Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel along with Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde and Sri K.S.Mahadevan, learned counsel; Sri H.Srinivasa Rao and Smt. Deepthi C.R., learned counsel; Sri K.N.Vasuki, learned counsel and Sri C.K.Subrahmanya for Sri B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel; Sri Anand K.R., learned counsel; Sri Santosh Narayan S., learned counsel; Sri Adithya Vikram Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and - 36 - Sri M.N. Kumar, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1 - Union of India; Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 (EPF), Smt. Shwetha Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (in W.P.Nos.22507/2015 and 19464/2021) have been heard.

#9. Arguments advanced by the petitioners’ counsel: (I) Introduction of para 83 and para 43A is opposed to the object and intendment of the Act (II) There is manifest arbitrariness while introducing para 83 and para 43A. (III) Para 83 introduced in the Scheme is violative of para 2(f) of the Act “excluded employee” and violative of the Act, for the reasons that: (i) The Act provides for coverage of the weaker sections where there is a ceiling limit; (ii) No salary ceiling limit for international workers which is in contravention to the Act; (iii) Heavy burden is on the employer; - 37 - (iv) Para 83 and para 43A are unconstitutional and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also illegal being opposed to the object of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. (v) Implications of amendment pertaining to insertion of para 83 and the international worker may be an Indian worker or foreign national: (a) An Indian employee working or having worked abroad in a country with which India has entered into SSA or any foreigner working in India in an establishment where the EPF & MP Act is applicable; (b) There is no cap on the salary on which the contribution is payable by the employer as well as the employee unlike Rs.15,000/- ceiling prescribed under the Act of “excluded employee”; (c) There is no cap on the salary to which the employee’s share of contribution has to be diverted to the EPF Scheme and the same is payable on the salary of the employee; - 38 - (d) The SSA is a bilateral instrument to protect the social security interest of the workers posted in another country; (e) As on 01.04.2011, only three SSAs have been effective from 01.09.2009, 01.10.2009

29.01.2011 in respect of Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland respectively. (f) Apart from the above, the SSAs have already been signed with France, Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Luxemburg and Republic of Korea, but have not yet been made effective; (g) The amendment is opposed to the very purpose and object of the EPF & MP Act, 1952; (h) The object of the legislature is to ensure for compulsory institution of contributory provident funds for weaker sections of the workers working in industrial undertakings; (i) At no point of time, the Act was intended to cover high-ranking officials and therefore, any amendment to the - 39 - Scheme must be done within the framework of statutory provisions of the Act amended to the Scheme pertaining to international workers; (j) Majority of the Indian employees excluded from the purview of the Act as in the entry level itself are not entitled to be recovered on reaching the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month; (k) Though the amendment termed as an international worker, only foreign nationals, who are holding higher positions like consultants and technicians drawing several lakhs of salary per month with high perks are brought under the Scheme, which is not only arbitrary, illegal, but also unconstitutional as it is opposed to the very intendment and the object of the Act; (l) The Act under the Scheme provides for a ceiling limit of Rs.15,000/-, any person who crosses the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month is an excluded employee, but in the case of an international worker, such limit is not prescribed. The employer is required to pay a contribution on the gross - 40 - salary of several lakhs of rupees per month, which is in total contravention of the Act; (m) The Scheme framed under Section 5 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 cannot go beyond the definition of “employee” under the application and object of the Act under the definition of “excluded employee”; (n) Para 83 is contrary to Section 6 of the EPF Act and higher interest over and above the ceiling limit is not entitled and the huge burden is on the employer; (o) Article 14 is applicable to foreign citizens, even non-citizens have to be protected under Articles 14 and 21. The introduction of para 83 is a violation of fundamental rights; (p) Central Government has given a go-bye to the Act, no application of mind by the Government; (q) While bringing Para 83 into force, the Central Government has not looked into the objects of the Act; - 41 - (r) The Scheme is oppressive and there is manifest arbitrariness while issuing notification by the Central Government and introducing para 83; (s) There is no intelligible differentia between the Indian employee and an international worker who is not covered under the Social Security Agreement or Bilateral Comprehensive Economic Agreement. There is no nexus between the object sought to be achieved under the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder the classification made; (t) There is no legislative competence to modify the EPF Scheme, 1952 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 in respect of an international worker who is not covered the Social Security Agreement or Bilateral Comprehensive Economic Agreement; (u) A foreign citizen has a right to challenge the constitutional validity of a plenary legislation or subordinate legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the - 42 - ground of discrimination and under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground of right to life; (v) A separate legislation shall be enacted for an international worker who is not covered under the Social Security Agreement or Bilateral Comprehensive Economic Agreement containing a clause on social security prior to

01.10.2008; (w) There is no thought process in inserting para 83 into the Employees’ Provident Scheme, 1952, and para 43A into the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995;

#10. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the following decisions in support of their respective cases: (I) Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel along with Sri Rajendra M.S., learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the following judgments: (a) Chairman, Railway Board and others vs. Chandrima Das (MRS) and others1 1 (2000) 2 SCC 465 - 43 - (b) Mafatlal Group Staff Association and others vs. Regional Commissioner Provident Fund and others2 (c) Otis Elevator Employees’ Union S.Reg and others vs. Union of India and others3 (d) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. and others vs. Union of India (UOI) 4 (e) Orissa Cement Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others5 (f) Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and another6 (g) Dental Council of India vs. Biyani Shikshan Samiti and another7 (h) V. Verghese vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax8 (II) Sri S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel along with Sri Somashekar, learned counsel: (a) In re the Special Courts Bill, 19789 (b) Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and others vs. Union of India (UOI) and others10 (c) Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and others vs. Union of India (UOI) and others11 ORDER - 74 - (ii) The introduction of para 83 of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and para 43A of Employees’ Pension Scheme are hereby struck down as unconstitutional and arbitrary and consequently, all the orders passed thereof are unenforceable. SD/- JUDGE S*