{"act":{"id":"employees-provident-funds-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1952-chhattisgarh","short_title":"The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952","long_title":null,"act_number":"19","act_year":1952,"enact_date":null,"enforcement_date":null,"ministry":null,"department":null,"jurisdiction":"Chhattisgarh","unit":"section","section_count":21,"in_force":true,"spent":false,"spent_note":null,"duplicate_of":null,"text_source":"ocr","scan_url":"https://indiacode.ecourtsindia.com/scan/170e54e7-ce78-4f68-a87e-74d303432d05.pdf","url":"https://indiacode.ecourtsindia.com/employees-provident-funds-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1952-chhattisgarh/"},"unit":"section","section":{"number":"7","heading":null,"text":"Subs. by Act 33 of 1988, s. 2, for sub-section (4) (w.e.f. 1-8-1988).","html":"<p>Subs. by Act 33 of 1988, s. 2, for sub-section (4) (w.e.f. 1-8-1988).</p>","words":13,"text_source":"ocr"},"classification":[],"instruments":[],"judgments":[{"cnr":"SCIN010045972019","order":"order-104.pdf","title":"The Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Sunil Kumar B","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2022-11-04","citation":"(2022) 14 SCC (Provisional Citation Expected)","precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"The Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 is legally valid and constitutional as the amendment was made within the vested power of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with paragraph 32 of the scheme and Entry 10 of Schedule III of the Act; the classification of employees based on salary for pension purposes satisfies the reasonable classification test under Article 14 of the Constitution; however, the requirement for employees to contribute 1.16 per cent on salary exceeding Rs. 15,000 per month is ultra vires the parent Act as it lacks statutory backing, and operation of this provision is suspended for six months to enable legislative amendment; the extension of the computation period from 12 months to 60 months is a valid exercise of power; the deadline for exercising fresh pension option under amended paragraph 11(4) is extended by four months from the date of judgment to protect the rights of employees who could not exercise options earlier due to misinterpretation of cutoff date requirements; employees of exempted establishments are entitled to the same pension scheme coverage as regular establishment employees.","applied_to_this_section":"Empowers Central Government to add to, amend or vary the scheme either prospectively or retrospectively; subject to Parliament laying requirement of thirty days; applied to determine legality of 2014 amendment notification","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010045972019/order-104"},{"cnr":"SCIN010009502021","order":"order-104.pdf","title":"The Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Sunil Kumar B.","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2022-11-04","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court) with Landmark Elements","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"The Central Government's power to amend the Employees' Pension Scheme under Section 7 of the 1952 Act and Schedule III, Entry 10 is valid and constitutional when exercised on basis of relevant material and within statutory framework. Amendments appropriately classifying employees by salary levels and altering computation methodology are permissible. However, requirements not statutorily backed (such as employee contribution of 1.16 per cent) are ultra vires. Employees retain rights to exercise options as interpreted in R.C. Gupta without temporal cutoff, and amendments must be applied uniformly to both exempted and unexempted establishment employees. The narrow scope of judicial review in pension scheme modifications does not permit courts to second-guess policy decisions on fund sustainability based on economic considerations.","applied_to_this_section":"Empowers Central Government to modify scheme prospectively or retrospectively; procedural requirement of laying notification before Parliament for 30 days; establishes scope of amendment authority","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010009502021/order-104"},{"cnr":"SCIN010022572018","order":"order-104.pdf","title":"The Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Sunil Kumar B.","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2022-11-04","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding on Supreme Court; Persuasive authority for High Courts","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"The Central Government's power to amend the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 under Section 7 of the 1952 Act is valid and the notification GSR 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 is legal and constitutional. Amendments raising the pensionable salary cap from Rs. 6,500 to Rs. 15,000, changing the computation methodology from 12 months to 60 months, and restricting automatic coverage to these salary levels constitute reasonable classification under Article 14 and fall within the government's amendment authority. However, the requirement for employees to contribute 1.16% of salary exceeding Rs. 15,000 is ultra vires the 1952 Act as it lacks statutory authorization. The interpretation in R.C. Gupta that no cutoff date exists for exercising options under the pre-amendment scheme remains valid and applies to the modified scheme, requiring the government to extend the option period for employees who were unable to exercise options due to the authority's earlier cutoff date interpretation. Employees of exempted establishments cannot be excluded from the option to remain in the pension scheme with higher salary coverage on equal terms with regular establishment employees.","applied_to_this_section":"Grants power to Central Government to add, amend or vary scheme prospectively or retrospectively by notification. Applied to validate notification GSR 609(E) dated 22 August 2014","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010022572018/order-104"},{"cnr":"SCIN010024392019","order":"order-104.pdf","title":"The Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Sunil Kumar B.","court":"SC","court_name":"Supreme Court of India","date":"2022-11-04","citation":null,"precedential_value":"Binding (Supreme Court)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"The Central Government validly exercised its delegated authority under Section 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to amend the Employees' Pension Scheme by G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014. The amendments, including the increase in maximum pensionable salary cap from Rs.6,500 to Rs.15,000, change in lookback period for calculating pensionable salary from 12 months to 60 months, and restrictions on new membership above the salary cap, constitute reasonable classification under Article 14 and are constitutional. However, the requirement for employee contribution at 1.16% on salary exceeding Rs.15,000 is ultra vires the parent Act as the Act does not contemplate employee contributions to the pension fund, and such contribution can only be mandated by amending the parent Act. Existing members who did not exercise options prior to the 2014 amendment cannot be debarred from exercising options under the amended paragraph 11(4) by reference to the six-month time limit for fresh options, and such time limit is extended by four months to ensure fairness. Employees of exempted establishments are entitled to receive identical pension benefits as employees of regular establishments and shall not be discriminated against. The interpretation given in R.C. Gupta regarding absence of cutoff dates in pre-2014 paragraph 11(3) remains valid and shall be implemented within eight weeks.","applied_to_this_section":"Grants power to Central Government to modify scheme prospectively or retrospectively through notification subject to Parliamentary oversight","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/SCIN010024392019/order-104"},{"cnr":"PHHC010996342015","order":"order-10.pdf","title":"Central Board of Trustees vs Hari Darshan Singh Bko","court":"HC","court_name":"PHHC","date":"2024-04-22","citation":"2024:PHHC:054260","precedential_value":"Persuasive (High Court)","court_marking":"reportable","ratio_decidendi":"The Commissioner determining moneys due from an employer under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 must conduct an independent inquiry himself and cannot solely rely on a report submitted by an Enforcement Officer or Inspector. The Commissioner must follow the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 7A, including providing reasonable opportunity to the employer to represent his case and produce evidence. An ex parte assessment based solely on an Enforcement Officer's report, without the Commissioner conducting a proper inquiry, is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. The principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) are mandatory in EPF proceedings.","applied_to_this_section":"The court extensively analyzed Section 7A which mandates that the Commissioner may conduct such inquiry as he deems necessary for determining moneys due from an employer. The court held that this inquiry must be conducted by the Commissioner himself and not delegated to or based solely on reports from Enforcement Officers. The Commissioner has the same powers as a Court under CPC 1908 for trying a suit.","basis":"cited","decided_under":null,"url":"https://ecourtsindia.com/cnr/PHHC010996342015/order-10"}],"corresponds_to":[],"url":"https://indiacode.ecourtsindia.com/employees-provident-funds-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1952-chhattisgarh/section/7/","note":null,"source_note":"Read from the Government's own scanned gazette with Azure Document Intelligence, then split into sections by their numbering. India Code publishes no text for this Act. The scan itself is mirrored into our own storage and served at /scan/170e54e7-ce78-4f68-a87e-74d303432d05.pdf, so the reading here can be checked against the page it came from without depending on India Code's own copy staying where it is (it was at https://indiacode.gov.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/b26cd3be-f16e-4135-9a45-4bd068bb2cce/content).","judgments_note":"Judgment holdings are the ratio decidendi as extracted from the order by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered. Reported judgments only.","licence":"Published with commentary and other original matter under s.52(1)(q)(ii), Copyright Act 1957."}