IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
K.P.Suresh Kumar and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary to Government Labour and Rehabilitation Department and Ors. – Respondents
WA NO. 103 of 2022
Decided On : 11-04-2025
(A) Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 17(1-C) - Writ appeal against dismissal of petition seeking to quash communications directing transfer to Self-Financing Pension Scheme - The exemption granted to primary Co-operative Societies from the provisions of the Scheme is binding on employees without individual consent - The court upheld the applicability of a prior judgment in rem to the appellants. (Paras 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 )
(B) Jurisdiction of the court - The court found no grounds to interfere with the learned Single Judge's decision based on the binding nature of the exemption order. (Paras 5 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The appellants, employees of a Co-operative Bank, challenged the direction to transfer to a Self-Financing Pension Scheme after the Government exempted their Society from the EPF Scheme.
Findings of Court:
The court found the exemption order binding and applicable to the appellants, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: Whether the exemption order is binding on the appellants without their consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exemption order under Section 17(1-C) is binding on all employees of the Society, regardless of individual consent, as it operates in rem.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.32643 of 2015. By the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2021 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants- petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P4, P5 and P6 communications; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the appellants-petitioners to continue under E.P.F Scheme itself and grant their benefits under the E.P.F Act and Scheme framed thereunder; and declare that the action of the respondents directing the Society to bring it under the purview of the Self-Financing Pension Scheme is highly unjust and illegal.
2. The case of the appellants in brief is as under:
While holding the post of Secretary, the 1st appellant retired from the service of the 6th respondent Palode Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The remaining appellants are the employees of that society. The 6th respondent established a Contributory Provident Fund in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (‘the Act’ in short). The Society and its employees were contributing amounts to the said Provident Fund. From 01.01.1982, the employees of the Society were enrolled as members of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (‘the Scheme’ in short) framed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF & MP Act’ in short). On becoming members of the Scheme, the balance available to the credit of the employees in the Contributory Provident Fund has been transferred to the Scheme framed under the EPF & MP Act. By Ext.P1 order dated 19.06.2006, by invoking the power under Section 17(1-C) of the EPF & MP Act, the Government has granted exemption to the primary Co-operative Societies from the provisions of the Scheme, so as to enable the employees of the Society to enrol as members of Self-Financing Pension Scheme framed under Section 80A of the Act. The appellants challenged this order by filing W.P(C)No.187 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed as belated. Against the dismissal of that writ petition, they filed W.A. No. 741 of 2012 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 20.07.2012 declaring that the transfer of funds from the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 of any retired or continuing member should be made only with his/her consent. The 1st appellant after his retirement submitted an application seeking pension. The Society also sent Ext.P3 letter dated 11.05.2015 to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner intimating the entire aspects including Ext.P2 judgment. However, vide; Ext.P4 communication dated 23.07.2015, the Regional Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation informed the Society that the request made by the 1st appellant seeking pension cannot be considered. It was also directed to intimate the pension fund account number of all the employees so as to transfer the accumulations in the Employees’ Pension Scheme to the Co- operative Pension Fund Corpus. Thereafter, the Kerala State Co- operative Employees’ Pension Board issued Ext.P5 communication dated 15.09.2015 to the Society directing it to take steps to submit applications to enroll all the employees under their Scheme and to allot code numbers. The 7th respondent also issued Ext.P6 communication dated 16.09.2015 directing the Society to comply with the direction in Ext.P5. Thereafter the appellants filed the writ petition.
2.1. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 17.11.2019 in the writ petition opposing the averments in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) documents. Respondents 3 to 5 also filed a counter affidavit dated 27.06.2018 producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(c) documents. The appellants filed a reply affidavit dated 05.01.2020 producing therewith Exts.P8 to P9(d) documents.
2.2. After conside
The exemption order under Section 17(1-C) of the EPF & MP Act is binding on employees of primary Co-operative Societies without individual consent.
Employees of District Co-operative Banks must be allowed to retain pension rights under the EPF Pension Scheme, as exclusion based on subsequent policies may not override prior entitlements based on ....
The court confirmed that a Co-operative Society registered under its own Act is not subject to the Employees Provident Fund provisions if its employees opt for a state pension scheme.
The entitlement to exercise an option for higher pension contributions under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme is governed and settled by the principles laid down in Sunil Kumar B & Others v. The ....
Pension rights depend on the fulfillment of predetermined conditions, and cabinet decisions lack enforceability without formal executive orders.
Employees of exempted establishments are entitled to pension benefits under the EPS 1995 based on actual salary, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Eligibility for benefits under pension scheme remains to be determined based on law and fact, allowing appellants to seek resolution with appropriate authority.
Employees must timely seek exemption from the EPF Scheme to switch to the GPF Scheme; failure to do so bars claims for benefits under the discontinued GPF Scheme.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.