CITY UNION BANK LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by two scheduled banks challenging the notification issued by the first respondent on 10/2/2016 under Sec. 1(3)(b) read with Sec. 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 .

(2.) As per Sec. 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, Sec. 1(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 establishment.

(3.) No notification was issued by the Central Government exercising their power under Sec. 1(3)(b) of the Act till 31/1/1966 extending the Act to Banking Companies. For the first time, the Act was extended to the Banking Companies which were doing business in one State or Union Territory and not having any department or branches outside the State or Union Territory. The present petitioners herein who were operating within the State of Tamil Nadu ( at that point of time) got covered under E.P.F. Act. Later, when they opened their branches in other States, they got excluded from the purview of the Act. This position continued till 25/2/2000.