The central legal point established in the judgment is the contributory nature of the pension scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the petitioner's liability to make contributions as required by the scheme.

1. The petitioner who is a workman employed by the third respondent Madras Race Club has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 19.11.2007 as well as 11.01.2008 passed by the second respondent Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Chennai.

2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 14.03.2008. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 26.11.2010, the same was admitted. But no interim order was granted despite the petitioner made an application for the same in M.P.No.1 of 2008. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, initially a counter affidavit dated 02.02.2009 was filed and subsequently another counter affidavit dated 18.04.2011 was also filed. On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit dated 20.04.2011 was filed by the Additional Secretary (Legal & PR), Madras Race Club, Chennai.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he joined the third respondent Club on 07.04.1969 and also became a Member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. He got superannuated on 30.04.2006 after rendering 37 years of service. When he became a Member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme in 1969, the third respondent deducted contributions from his wages and forwarded the same to the respondents 1 and 2.

4. Under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, three Schemes were framed to benefit the employees. They are (i) Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952; (ii) Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 and (iii) Employees' Deposit Link Insurance Scheme. The Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 is applicable to all the employees, who are covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to become its Members. But however, it was optional for such of those persons, who were Members of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952 as on 28.02.1971. Since the petitioner became a Member of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952, the Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 should have been made applicable to the petitioner and the employer should have deducted 1.1/6% of his pay towards contribution. The Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 was replaced by the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. The new Scheme automatically took contributions for the old Scheme which vests with the new Scheme. In case of default, the authorities are entitled to recover the said amount. But though the petitioner had retired after 37 years of service after attaining the age of superannuation, he was not paid pension. Hence, he caused a legal notice for grant of pension for the long years of service rendered by him.

5. By the impugned order dated 19.11.2007, the petitioner was informed that since he was not a Member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 and also did not opt to exercise to become a Member of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 by remitting the amount payable from 01.03.1971 with interest up to the date, he is not eligible to get pension. His counsel was also informed that only by remitting the said amount, he can claim in Form 10-D. Reliance was placed upon in Paras 6(d), 7(3) and 17(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The petitioner's counsel was informed that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.31,550/- which is the amount to be remitted upto 15.11.1995 and also interest at the rate of 8.5% from 11/1995 to 11/2007 which works out to Rs.31,957/-. The total sum payable by the petitioner before 30.11.2007 was Rs.63,507/-. When he sent a further notice dated 15.12.2007, by the second impugned order dated 11.01.2008, the petitioner was informed that unless he pays all past period contributions together with interest, he cannot be covered by the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

6. However, Mr.K.Shanmugakani, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the employer (the third respondent herein) with an obligation to deduct contributions payable towards the Pension Scheme, neither