Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Etc. VS Sunil Kumar B. & Etc.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Etc. - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar B. & Etc. - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.8658-8659 OF 2019 WITH W.P. (C) No.767 of 2021; SLP (C) No.3289 of 2021; CONMT. PET.(C) Nos.1917- 1918 of 2018 IN C.A. Nos.10013-10014 of 2016; W.P. (C) No.406 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.368 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.393 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.395 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.374 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.372 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.385 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.360 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.1134 of 2018; W.P. (C) No.390 of 2019; W.P. (C) No.875 of 2019; W.P. (C) No.349 of 2019; W.P. (C) No.466 of 2019; W.P. (C) No.352 of 2019, SLP (C) Nos.16721-16722 of 2019, W.P. (C) NO.512 of 2019, W.P. (C) NO.511 of 2019, W.P.(C) NO.500 of 2019, CONTMT.PET(C)NOs.619- 620 of 2019 IN C.A. NOs.10013-10014 of 2016, W.P.(C) NO.601 of 2019, W.P.(C) No.1312 of 2019, W.P.(C) No.832 of 2019, SLP(C) NO.2465 of 2021, SLP(C)NO.3287 of 2021, DIARY NO.46219 of 2019, W.P.(C) No.1218 of 2020, SLP(C)NO.1366 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.1459 of 2020, W.P.(C) No.1332 of 2020, SLP(C) NO.3290 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.86 of 2021, SLP(C) NO.1738 of 2021, SLP(C) No.1701 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.414 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.477 of 2021, SLP(C) NO.8547 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.233 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.69 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.141 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.118 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.250 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.380 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.371 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.367 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.369 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.411 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.466 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.804 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.594 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.884 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.778 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.874 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.1149 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.1167 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.1430 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.1433 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.1428 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.269 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.327 of 2019
Decided On : 24-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Waqf Al Aulad Sheikh Atta Ur Rehman, K. S. Rana, Uday Gupta, Shivani M. Lal, Rambhakt Agarwal, M.K. Tripathi, Rajeev Ranjan, Harish Dasan, Hiren Dasan, Advocates

Headnote:
Service Law – Retiral Benefits – It was submitted that the difference between Provident Fund Scheme on one hand and Pension Scheme on the other was well recognised – Under former scheme, contributions made by employer and employees during employment of employee would be made over to employee along with interest accrued thereon at the time of his retirement – Obligation on part of operators of Provident Fund Scheme would come to an end, after retirement of employee; whereas obligation under Pension Scheme would begin when employee retired – Under former scheme, liability was only to pay interest on amount deposited and to make over entire amount at the time of his retirement – On the contrary, in latter scheme, it would be for operators of Pension Scheme to invest amount deposited in such a way that after retirement of concerned employee invested amount would keep on giving sufficient returns so that pension would be paid to concerned employee not only during his life time but even to his family members after his death – If option under Paragraph 11(3) of Scheme, was to be afforded well after cut-off date, it would create great imbalance and would amount to cross-subsidization by those who were regularly contributing to Pension Scheme in favour of those who come at a later point in time and walk away with all advantages – Principal questions that arise for consideration are whether there would be a cut-off date under Paragraph 11(3) of Employees’ Pension Scheme and whether decision in R.C. Gupta would be governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed of – Logical course would be to refer all these matters to a Bench of at least three Judges so that appropriate decision can be arrived at – Registry directed to place these matters before Chief Justice for requisite directions so that these matters can be placed before a larger Bench. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Result : Matter referred to Larger Bench.

ORDER :

1. By Order dated 25.02.2021 these matters were broadly divided in four categories with lead matters being:-

(ii) SLP(C) Diary No(s). 46219/2019 [arising from the judgment dated 22.5.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi] along with connected matter being SLP(C) No. 1366/2021 [arising from the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi];

(iii) SLP(C) No. 2465/2021 [arising from judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur]; and

(iv) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1917-1918/2018 in C.A. No. 10013-10014/2016 [seeking implementation of the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by this Court in C.A.No.10013/201 : R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. etc. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors. Etc., (2018) 4 SCC 809] …...”

2. SLP (C) Nos.8658 – 59 of 2019 challenging the Judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition (C) Nos.602/2015 and 13120/2015 were initially dismissed by this Court on 01.04.2019.

Thereafter, SLP (C) Nos. 16721-22/2019 at the instance of Union of India challenging the very same judgment dated 12.10.2018 came up before this Court on 12.07.2019. While condoning the delay in preferring said SLPs, this Court directed that said SLPs be listed along with Review Petition (C) Nos.1430-31/2019 (which had since then been preferred against the order dated 01.04.2019 in SLP(C) Nos.8658-59/2019) in open Court.

3. When both sets of matters were listed before this Court on 29.01.2021, the submissions on behalf of the petitioners were noted as under:-

Mr. Sundaram, also invited our attention to the decision of this Court in M/s Pawan Hans Ltd. & Ors. vs. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana & Ors [2020(2)SCALE 194, Also reported : (2020) 13 SCC 506] and specially paragraph 6.6 of the decision.

It was submitted that as a result of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 12.10.2018, benefit would get conferred upon employees retrospectively which, in turn, would create great imbalance.”

4. Thereafter, this Court recalled the order dismissing SLP (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019 and the entire bunch of matters was directed to be listed for disposal.

5. It may be noted here that the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in its order dated 12.10.2018 had relied upon the decision of two Judges of this Court in R.C. Gupta (supra). Said decision had set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA Nos.411-12 of 2012 which had inter alia accepted the submission that under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme there was a cut-off date. Paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the decision in R.C. Gupta (supra) were as under:-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (3)