REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization / its Officers arise from a common Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3846/2019 and connected cases. The petitioners in the various Writ petitions claimed, that they are entitled, in terms of the provisions contained in The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Scheme' or as 'the scheme') to a pension calculated without reference to any ceiling limit upon further contributions being remitted to their pension fund. The Learned Single Judge has allowed the claim relying on the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) Nos.6643 of 20071, the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sasikumar.P and others v. Union of India and others; 2018 KHC 906 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R.C Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident 1 This Judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A No. 569 of 2012 and a Special Leave Petition filed by the Provident Fund Organization before the Supreme Court was rejected on 31.3.2016. Fund Organization and others; (2018) 14 SCC 809. The Learned Single Judge directed the Employees Provident Fund Organization to allow the employees concerned to remit the additional contributions either by adjustment of amounts available in the Provident Fund Account (maintained under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme which, is distinct from the pension fund) or by permitting the employees to now remit the shortfall. Therefore, these appeals by the Employees Provident Fund Organization / its officers.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri. N.N Sugunapalan, Learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt. Nita N.S, Sri. Sajeevkumar K Gopal and Sri. S. Prashant for the Employees Provident Fund Organization and that of Sri.P.N.Mohanan as well as other learned counsel representing the contesting respondents (writ petitioners).

(3.) The Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization would contend, inter alia, that the pension scheme is a contributory scheme and that the entire corpus of the scheme will be affected if the Judgment of the learned single Judge is implemented. They would submit that where the contributions under the pension scheme have been paid only with reference to the maximum pensionable salary, a member has no option to remit the contribution on actual salary at any point of time and claim that he/she should then be provided with the pension calculated with reference to actual salary and not with reference to the maximum pensionable salary provided for in the scheme. They submit that periodic contribution over a period of time is a sine qua non for providing a pension and by offering to now remit, in one go, the contributions payable with reference to actual salary, the employees cannot get a pension with reference to such actual salary. Periodic contributions are invested in the manner prescribed by the Central Government and the growth in the corpus on account of such investment alone is the basis for grant of pension is their submission. They place reliance on (i) Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323; for the proposition that the Court should not enlarge the scope of the legislation when the language of the provisions are plain and unambiguous; (ii) Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority; (1984) 4 SCC 356; for the proposition that while construing a social welfare legislation, the Court should no doubt adopt a beneficent rule of construction and if the section is capable of two constructions, the construction which fulfills the policy of the Act should be adopted however that when the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it whatever be the consequence; (iii) Regional Director, ESI Corpn. v. Ramanuja Match Industries; (1985) 1 SCC 218; where it was held: - "We do not doubt that beneficial legislations should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the Court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme"; (iv) State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal; (2017) 5 SCC 163; for the proposition that a Court cannot take steps for framing a policy; (v) Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Provident Fund Commr.; (2009) 10 SCC 123; regarding the power of the PF authorities in the recovery of contributions; and (vi) Pawan Hans Limited and Others v. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana and Others; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 43 where the Supreme Court has considered the working of the Provident Fund Scheme.