Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
City Union Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding discrimination in epf applicability. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. challenge to epf notification concerning bank coverage. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. contrasting views on employee coverage between bank classes. (Para 10 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. court affirms need for both criteria for exemption from epf. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion: no merit in writ petitions. (Para 22) |
COMMON ORDER
These two writ petitions have been filed by two scheduled banks challenging the notification issued by the first respondent on 10.02.2016 under Section 1 (3)(b) read with Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 .
(A)Factual Matrix:
2.As per Section 1 (3)(a) of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 , every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule-I and in which 20 or more persons are employed are covered under E.P.F Act. Admittedly, the Banking Companies are not specified in Schedule-I. However, (3)(b) of the Act, empowers Central Government to issue a notification in the official gazette to extend the coverage of the Act to any other establishment employing 20 or more persons or class of such es
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
