The court ruled that retrospective contributions to the provident fund are not permitted under the EPF Act, emphasizing the need for financial sustainability of the fund.

JUDGMENT :

 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging the judgment dated 28.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.7801 of 2020 of the learned Single Judge. Appellants were respondents 1 to 3 in the W.P.(C). Respondents were petitioners 1 to 67 and the 4^th respondent, respectively in the W.P.(C).

2. Respondents 1 to 67 were employees of the 68th respondent, Cochin International Airport Authority (CIAL), which is a Public Limited Company. Employees of CIAL are covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The employer’s contribution to the provident fund for the period from 1995 to 2003 was paid by CIAL on statutory limits and not on the actual salary of the respondents. Later, CIAL had submitted a series of representations (Ext.P1 series) dated 15.11.2018 to 07.01.2020, inter alia, pointing out its willingness to remit retrospective contribution to the provident fund based on actual salary. CIAL had also vide the said representations requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (appellant No.2) to process the higher pension claims of their retired employees and to grant them a higher pension. Alleging that the appellants are not acting on the specific requests made by their employer, viz., the CIAL, respondents 1 to 67 had filed the Writ Petition inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 1 to 3 to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to compute and communicate the deficiency on the part of 4^th respondent in making provident fund contribution for the period from February, 1995 to June 2003, or such other period, including damages and interest, if any, with respect to petitioners and permit the 4^th respondent to remit the deficient amount to the respective provident fund account of the petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 or such other appropriate authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1, P1(a), P1(b), P1(c), P1(d), P1(e), P1(f), P1(g) requests preferred by the 4^th respondent, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court ;

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 to process the joint option forms forwarded by the 4^th respondent as contemplated under Exhibit P2 judgment within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court ;

(iv) To pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case.

(v) To award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.”

3. The EPFO filed a detailed counter affidavit in the W.P.(C) inter alia, pointing out that there is no provision for accepting retrospective contribution to the Provident Fund and that the attempt of respondents 1 to 67 to get pension on their actual salary at a very belated point in time is not legally sustainable. Respondents 1 to 67 filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the EPFO. In the W.P.(C), the learned Single Judge had vide an interim order directed CIAL to produce a demand draft (DD) for the requisite sum, which was duly complied with. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge had vide impugned judgment, disposed of the W.P.(C) inter alia directing the appellants to encash the DD deposited by CIAL towards alleged deficiency and arrears and thereafter to issue a letter for details of the all