RICHARD MUSA Vs. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-release of the balance Employee provident fund contributions made by him to the Respondent. The Petitioner claims to be an International Worker as defined under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. He had worked in Chennai with M/s. SPI Cinemas Private Limited. He is a citizen of England. While in employment with M/s. SPI Cinemas Private Limited, he was regularly making Employee provident fund contributions.

(2.) On his contract period getting over with M/s. SPI Cinemas Private Limited, he had sought for release of his Employee provident fund contributions. Instead of releasing the entire amount, the Respondent had released only part of the said amount. Therefore, he made a representation to the Respondent requesting for release of the balance amount, which has been rejected under the impugned Order, dtd. 27/8/2021 on the ground that as per the Circular of the Respondent, dtd. 27/11/2012, regarding Settlement of claims in respect of International Workers, (i.e., who is not covered under Social Security Agreement), the same can be done only if the member satisfies the conditions prescribed under Para 69 and Para 83 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. According to the Petitioner, by total non-application of mind to Para 69 and Para 83 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, the Respondent has passed the impugned Order. According to him, he has satisfied all the conditions and being an International Worker, he is entitled for the balance Employee provident fund contributions made by him under the Scheme.

(3.) A Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the Respondent reiterating the contentions of the impugned Order, dtd. 27/8/2021. Apart from that, learned Counsel for the Respondent drew the attention of the Court to certain provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme which is not reflected in the impugned Order. Para 69 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 reads as follows: