Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. J. TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Versus
Union of India
Decided on : April 17, 1995
Employees Provident Fund Scheme - Validity of Amended Paragraph 26(2) - The High court upheld the validity of the amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, rejecting challenges based on non-compliance of the Act, denial of minimum wages, impracticability, and violation of constitutional provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The question before the High court was the validity of the amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, challenged on grounds of non-compliance of the Act, denial of minimum wages, impracticability, and violation of constitutional provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The High court rejected all four contentions and upheld the validity of the amended paragraph 26(2) of the Scheme, agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions reached.
Issues: Validity of amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Act and constitutional provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no grounds to interfere with the High court's judgment, indicating that the amended paragraph 26(2) was valid and in compliance with the legal framework.
Final Decision: The special leave petitions and intervention applications were dismissed.
Judgment
( 1 ) ORDER The question before the High court was whether the amended paragraph 26 (2 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (the scheme) framed under S. 5 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) was invalid and unconstitutional. The High court answered the question in the negative.
( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The-validity of paragraph 26 (2 of the Scheme was challenged before the High court on the following grounds: (I) The amendment to paragraph 26 (2 of the Scheme is invalid for non-compliance of S. 7 (2 of the Act. (II) The compulsory contribution amounts to denial of minimum wages. (III) The amendment is impracticable and unworkable. (IV) The amendment is ultra vires the Act and Article 14 and Art. 19 (1 (g) of the Constitution.
( 3 ) BY a detailed and well reasoned judgment, the High court has rejected all the four contentions noted above. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High court. We agree with the reasoning and the consequences reached by the High court therein.
( 4 ) THE special leave petitions are dismissed
( 5 ) INTERVENTION applications are dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
