Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1492

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Regional P.F Commissioner, EPFO, RO Delhi – Appellant
Versus
M/S. SDU TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.145/2024 | Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.146/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. R. Vishnu
For the Respondent: Mr. Ahsan Ahmed, RP

The limitation period for filing EPF dues is directory, not mandatory, and claims must be considered regardless of delay, particularly when they pertain to statutory dues.

Headnote:(A) Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 2(f), 7A, 7Q, 14B, and 11(2) - Employee defined - Employer’s liability to remit provident fund dues - The Tribunal held that claims under relevant sections were barred by limitation and not maintainable, rejecting appeals for interest and damages. - The Appellant argued that the limitation period in Regulation 12 was directory, not mandatory, emphasizing the necessity of considering statutory dues, particularly since the Resolution Plan remained pending. - Claims should not be rejected based solely on delay, especially after relying on Supreme Court authority. - Appeals allowed, and matter remitted for reconsideration on merits. (Paras 1, 6, 30)

Table of Content
1. overview of provident fund legislation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the current appeals and their implications. (Para 4 , 5)
3. tribunal's observations on limitation. (Para 6 , 7)
4. arguments on the directory nature of limitation periods. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. final decision and order to reconsider the claims. (Para 24 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

The legislature of our country, for the purpose of providing the benefit of Provident Funds and Deposit-Linked Insurance to its employees who have been working in factories and establishments, had, by virtue of a Presidential Notification dated 04.03.1952, envisaged securing the future of employees working in such establishments and factories by extending provident fund and insurance benefits to them, so as to protect their future. This is why its object was later modified from time to time, having regard to the changed circumstances of industrial development in the country and to the law as per its needs due to industrial growth.

2. It provides that every establishment which is in the form of a factory or engaged in an industrial activity as specified in Schedule 1 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or in any industry where more than 20 persons are employed, or any other establishment not engaged in an industrial activity but where 20 or more persons are working, shall also be notified by the Official Gazette to receive the benefits which are to be extended to workmen under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952). If we examine the Act in its entirety and the SOR of the Act of 1952, the provisions of the Act have been given an overriding effect, being a beneficial legislation intended to ensure that employers and the majority of employees working in such establishments or factories are made liable to contribute their share, which is to be paid to employees/workmen as and when the necessity arises or as it becomes due under the covenants of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 .

3. The definition under Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 , clearly describes what the term “employee” means in the context of the extension of benefits under the Act of 1952. An employee means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work and who receives wages directly or indirectly from the employer. The term “employee” also includes workmen employed through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment, or those engaged as apprentices. The term “employee” as defined under (f) of the Act of 1952 is extracted hereunder:

“(f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of 7[an establishment], and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, 8[and includes any person—

(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment;

(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the standing orders of the establishment;]

9[(ff) “exempted employee” means an employee to whom a Scheme 10[or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be] would, but for the exemption granted under 11[* * *] Section 17, have applied;

(fff) “exempted 12[establishment]” means 13[an establishment] in respect of which an exemption has been granted under Section 17 from the operation of all or any of the provisions of any Scheme, 14[or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be] whether such exemption has been granted to the 15[establishment] as such or to any person or class of persons employed therein;]”

4. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 , also independently defines the insurance fund, pension fund, pens

Click Here to Read the rest of this document