Retrospective contributions to provident funds must be addressed by employers in line with statutory obligations, allowing for employee benefits from previously unmade contributions.

JUDGMENT AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Present writ appeal is directed at the instance of five (5) writ petitioners out of a set of sixteen (16) writ petitioners, who have not been successful before the Single Bench in claiming the following reliefs:

“i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P3, examine its legality, propriety and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 1 to 4 to compute and communicate the deficiency on the part of 5th respondent in making provident fund contribution on the respective actual salary of petitioners, including damages and interest, if any, and permit the 5^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.

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

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

2. Petitioners approached this Court by challenging the judgment of the Single Bench on the premise that the request made by the employer had not been addressed by the EPF in correct perspective and once the employer had accepted the fault, the remedy for the EPF was to initiate the steps for damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q, but not by rejecting the same vide Ext.P3. All these aspects have not been referred to in the judgment impugned, though while rendering the judgment, learned Single Judge found that out of 16 writ petitioners, few had already retired before 01.09.2014 i.e., the date of amendment caused in the EPF Act with regard to increasing the ceiling limit under the pension scheme. It is in that aspect, five petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos.1, 2, 10, 15 and 16 have approached this Court in the present intra court appeal.

3. All the aforementioned appellants have retired from the office of the Kerala State Homeopathic Co- operative Pharmacy Limited - 5^th respondent, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Since it had more than twenty(20) employees, was registered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The date of joining and date of retirement of the appellants are given hereunder:

“

”

4. Fifth respondent had subscribed to the employees Provident Fund since 1984 and had been remitting their share of contribution to the Provident Fund Department at the rate of 12% of the actual salary, i.e., 12% of 5000 and 6500/-. Since the salary of the appellants-employees being less than Rs.6500, restriction in the employer contribution did not have any adverse effects on the rights and benefit of the employees. The increase in the salary was only with effect from 01.09.2014. The controversy involved in the present case was that the moment when amendment w