{"id":321712,"date":"2024-05-08T17:45:09","date_gmt":"2024-05-08T12:15:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=321712"},"modified":"2024-05-16T10:14:40","modified_gmt":"2024-05-16T04:44:40","slug":"para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Karnataka High Court:<\/span> While considering a bunch of petitions questioning the validity of Para 83 introduced in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (“EPF Scheme”) and Para 43A in Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (“Pension Scheme”), on the ground that these provisions are arbitrary and unconstitutional, the Bench of K.S. Hemalekha, J.*<\/span>, struck down the impugned provisions reasoning that the legislature arbitrarily and unreasonably enacted para 83, the introduction of the impugned provisions violated Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and the classification made under them was unreasonable and defeated the very intent of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that a legislation cannot run beyond the parameters of the Parent Act and there must always be some principles to guide the exercise of discretion.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/span> The Union of India, vide notification dated 01-10-2008, introduced Para 83 in the EPF Scheme and Para 43A under the Pension Scheme, covering international workers with effect from 01-10-2008.<\/p>\n

Contentions:<\/span> The petitioners stated that, under para 83 of the EPF Scheme, “international workers<\/span>” are covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Scheme, irrespective of the salary drawn by them. The employees other than the international workers, who draw salary exceeding Rs.15,000\/- per month, are outside the purview of the Scheme.<\/p>\n

It was stated that the international workers do not work till retirement, they work only for a limited period. Thus, requiring them to pay PF contribution on their entire global salary would cause irreparable injury. According to the petitioners, requirement of international workers to pay EPF contributions is arbitrary and violates Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that in the impugned provisions, there is no salary ceiling limit for international workers which is in contravention to the EPF Act. These provisions further put a burden on the employers. It was contended that there is no cap on the salary on which the contribution is payable by the employer as well as the employee; furthermore, there is no cap on the salary to which the employee’s share of contribution has to be diverted to the EPF Scheme.<\/p>\n

The petitioners thus knocked the doors of the Court seeking to declare para 83 of the EPF Scheme and para 43A of the Pension Scheme, as unconstitutional and illegal for opposing the very object of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act)<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/span>, the respondent argued that it had affected changes to the Act by making special provisions for different types of workers. It was contended that the EPF Act was duly amended in 2008 under which, Para 83 was inserted into the EPF Scheme to extend the coverage of international workers; furthermore, the amendment also introduced para 43A under the Employees’ Pension Scheme which was given effect from 11-09-2010, insofar as it relates to international workers.<\/p>\n

The respondent further submitted that the Government of India finalized a bilateral Social Security Agreement (“SSA”) with Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxemburg, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands. As a result of the reciprocal agreements with these countries, the Government of India extended the provisions of the EPF Act, and the Schemes to international workers.<\/p>\n

The respondent further contended that the intention of the Parliament to amend the Scheme was to ensure that no person can be deprived of social security benefits and no Indian deputed to work outside the country, should be deprived of the benefits.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment and Findings:<\/span> The Court had to consider whether the introduction of para 83 of EPF Scheme and para 43A of EP Scheme is unconstitutional and hit by Art. 14<\/a> of Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Taking note of Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Court noted that it encompasses the general principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between the two persons. It incorporates the idea of equality as expressed in the Preamble. Relying on several precedents elucidating the characteristics of Art. 14; considering the impugned provisions, and Sections 5 and 7 EPF Act the Court pointed out that on reading of Section 7 of the EPF Act, the modification of the Scheme is a statutory power which the Central Government initially exercises and then the notification is placed before each of the houses of the parliament for its ratification. In the instant case, the Court noted that Government of India has the power under Section 7(1) of the EPF Act to modify the Scheme from time to time and the competence of the Central Government to introduce or modify the Scheme is apparent from Section 7 of the EPF Act.<\/p>\n

Taking note of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the EPF Act, the Court pointed out that the EPF Act is a social welfare legislation meant for the protection of industrial workers to enable them to have an alternative to the pension. The Act is also meant to inculcate savings for their future, especially for the period after their retirement. It is nowhere mentioned in the objects of the EPF Act regarding covering employees irrespective of the salary drawn by them<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Elucidating the aforementioned point, the Court stated that in the beginning, only those employees who drew a salary of Rs. 3,500 or less were to be covered under EPF Act; later on, it was raised to Rs 6,500 per month and then to Rs.15,000 per month indicating that, the EPF Act was enacted with a view to see that those in lower salary brackets get retirement benefits and by no stretch of imagination, could it be said that the employees who draw lakhs of rupees per month, should be given the benefit under the enactment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Coming onto Para 83 of the EPF Scheme, the Court noted that the objective of introducing this impugned provision could be seen as protecting Indian employees going abroad to work from being subjected to the social security and the retirement clause of that foreign country.<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that Para 83 of the EPF Scheme is in the nature of subordinate legislation and therefore, the subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the scope of the Parent Act. The Court pointed out that when a ceiling amount of Rs 15,000 per month has been placed as a threshold for an employee, Para 83 of the EPF Scheme ought not to have placed an unlimited threshold for international workers while denying the same benefit to Indian workers<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that an Indian employee working in a foreign country with Social Security Agreement, who is covered under EPF Act, 1952 continues to contribute a meagre sum of Rs.15,000 whereas, a foreign worker from SSA country, without a certificate of coverage, is made to contribute PF on his entire salary, although both these group of employees have been defined as international workers. The Court stated that the respondents were unable to substantiate any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, therefore, para 83 is clearly discriminatory in treating the international workers of Indian origin and foreign origin differently and thus violative of Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court found that distinction in the amount of contribution<\/span> between an employee going to a non-SSA country<\/span> and an employee from a non-SSA country coming to India<\/span> is clearly discriminatory and violative of Art. 14.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Court found that there is discrimination between the<\/span> Indian employees working in a non-SSA country (who are not international workers as per definition)<\/span> and foreign employees from a non-SSA working in India<\/span> who are classified as international workers<\/span>. There is no rational basis for this classification nor there is reciprocity that compels to classify foreign employees from non-SSA countries as international workers. In the absence of parity and also in the absence of reciprocity, there is no justification to demand a contribution on the entire pay of a foreign employee from a non-SSA country.<\/p>\n

The demand for contribution on global salary, which should also be computed for the purpose of the contribution, is on the face of it arbitrary and is hit by Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This with the afore-stated assessment, the Court allowed the petitions and declared para 83 of EPF Scheme and para 43A of EP Scheme as violative of Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and held all orders passed thereof to be unenforceable.<\/p>\n

[Stone Hill Education Foundation v. EPFO, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 49<\/a>, decided on 25-04-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Order by Justice K.S. Hemalekha<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For petitioners-<\/span> S.N. Murthy, senior counsel along with Somashekar, counsel; Udaya Holla, senior counsel along with Rajendra M.S., counsel; Dhyan Chinnappa, senior counsel along with M.V. Sundararaman and Krishar Somaiah, counsel; Lakshmi Iyengar, senior counselalong with Revathy Adinath Narde and K.S. Mahadevan, counsel; H. Srinivasa Rao and Deepthi C.R., counsel; K.N. Vasuki, counsel and C.K. Subrahmanya for B.C. Prabhakar, counsel; Sri Anand K.R., counsel; Sri Santosh Narayan S., counsel; Adithya Vikram Bhat, counsel<\/p>\n

For respondents-<\/span> M.N. Kumar, Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1; Nandita Haldipur, counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 (EPF), Shwetha Anand, counsel for respondent No.2 (in W.P.Nos.22507\/2015 and 19464\/2021) and BV Vidyulata, Advocate<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The new provisions which were introduced to cover international workers under the EPF Scheme, was held to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":316069,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[7292,17341,52760,40669,30711,42998,68464,39777,68467,68466,68465,52773],"class_list":["post-321712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-14","tag-employees-pension-scheme","tag-employees-provident-fund-scheme","tag-employees-provident-fund","tag-epf","tag-intelligible-differentia","tag-international-workers","tag-karnataka-hc","tag-labour-and-services-laws","tag-para-43a","tag-para-83","tag-reasonable-nexus"],"yoast_head":"\nKarnataka HC declares Para 83, EPF Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, EP Scheme, 1995 to be unconstitutional<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Karnataka HC declared Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995 to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka HC declared Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995 to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-05-08T12:15:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-16T04:44:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-08T12:15:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-16T04:44:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1519,\"commentCount\":1,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Article 14\",\"Employees Pension Scheme\",\"Employees provident Fund Scheme\",\"Employees' Provident Fund\",\"EPF\",\"Intelligible Differentia\",\"international workers\",\"Karnataka HC\",\"labour and services laws\",\"Para 43A\",\"Para 83\",\"Reasonable nexus\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/\",\"name\":\"Karnataka HC declares Para 83, EPF Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, EP Scheme, 1995 to be unconstitutional\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-08T12:15:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-16T04:44:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Karnataka HC declared Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995 to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Karnataka High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/08\\\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/legal_editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka HC declares Para 83, EPF Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, EP Scheme, 1995 to be unconstitutional","description":"Karnataka HC declared Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995 to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional","og_description":"Karnataka HC declared Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995 to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-05-08T12:15:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-16T04:44:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional","datePublished":"2024-05-08T12:15:09+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-16T04:44:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/"},"wordCount":1519,"commentCount":1,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp","keywords":["Article 14","Employees Pension Scheme","Employees provident Fund Scheme","Employees' Provident Fund","EPF","Intelligible Differentia","international workers","Karnataka HC","labour and services laws","Para 43A","Para 83","Reasonable nexus"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","name":"Karnataka HC declares Para 83, EPF Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, EP Scheme, 1995 to be unconstitutional","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-05-08T12:15:09+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-16T04:44:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Karnataka HC declared Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995 to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Karnataka High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/08\/para83-epf-scheme-para43a-pension-provident-fund-article14-unconstitutional-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka HC holds Para 83, Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Para 43A, Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme, 1995, unconstitutional"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":276822,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/05\/amended-employees-pension-scheme-valid-provisions-read-down-applicability-explained-1-6-contribution-illegal-supreme-court-legal-research-service-law-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":321712,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court upholds validity of amended Employees\u2019 Pension Scheme but reads down certain provisions; Explains applicability of pre & post amendment Scheme","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000\/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme has, however, been held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. The Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-8-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291399,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/05\/govt-notifies-social-security-code-effective-date-for-pf-pension-scheme-provisions\/","url_meta":{"origin":321712,"position":1},"title":"Government notifies effective date of Social Security Code provisions relating to Provident Fund Scheme","author":"Kriti","date":"May 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Ministry of Labour and Employment appoints 3-5-2023 as the date on which the following provisions of the Social Security Code, 2020 came into force\u2014 1. Section 15 (3) relates to \u201cSchemes\u201d and talks about any or all of its provisions to take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ministry of labour and employment\u00a0","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ministry-of-labour-and-employment-.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ministry-of-labour-and-employment-.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ministry-of-labour-and-employment-.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ministry-of-labour-and-employment-.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/03\/epfo-launched-employees-enrolment-scheme-2025-policy-update\/","url_meta":{"origin":321712,"position":2},"title":"Towards Social Security for All: EPFO’s Employees’ Enrolment Scheme 2025","author":"Shubhi","date":"November 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"EPFO launched Employees\u2019 Enrolment Scheme 2025 to promote voluntary compliance and expand EPF coverage, advancing the national goal of social security for all.","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Employees' Enrolment Scheme 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Employees-Enrolment-Scheme-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Employees-Enrolment-Scheme-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Employees-Enrolment-Scheme-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Employees-Enrolment-Scheme-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218782,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/29\/breaking-centre-proposes-reduction-in-employees-provident-fund-contribution\/","url_meta":{"origin":321712,"position":3},"title":"Breaking | Centre proposes reduction in Employees’ Provident Fund contribution","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"As reported by money control, Ministry of Labour and Employment has recommended reducing\u00a0the contribution made by employees towards the Employees\u2019 Provident Fund (EPF). Presently, the mandated EPF contribution is 24 percent of basic pay, divided equally between employers and employees. The above-made suggestion is a part of the proposed Employees\u2019\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":227965,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/06\/epf-scheme-amended-to-permit-upto-75non-refundable-advance-from-pf-a-c-to-members-employed-in-areas-declared-affected-by-epidemic-or-pandemic-outbreak\/","url_meta":{"origin":321712,"position":4},"title":"EPF scheme amended to permit upto 75% non-refundable advance from PF A\/c to members employed in areas declared affected by epidemic or pandemic outbreak","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"G.S.R. 225(E).\u2014 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 read with sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Employees\u2019 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme further to amend the Employees\u2019 Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, namely:\u2013\u2013 1.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":224362,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/jhar-hc-employee-is-entitled-to-superannuation-pension-only-if-he-has-rendered-eligible-service-of-ten-years-or-more-before-attaining-the-age-of-58-years\/","url_meta":{"origin":321712,"position":5},"title":"Jhar HC | Employee is entitled to superannuation pension only if he has rendered eligible service of ten years or more, before attaining the age of 58 years\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 22, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Kailash Prasad Deo, JJ. was hearing a writ petition of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to the validity of allowance of pension under the Employments Pension Scheme, 1995. The petition has been filed by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321712\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/316069"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=321712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=321712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}