BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions, except W. P. No. 17453/2000, have been filed by commercial banks having branches in Tamil Nadu as well as in other States for quashing the notification dated February 25,2000 issued by the Union of india and raising the question of applicability of the provisions contained in the Employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952 and the Scheme made thereunder. W. P. No. 17453/2000 is filed by the Karur vysya Bank Employees' Union essentially for the very same purpose.

(2.) UNDER the Sastri Award, while considering the demand relating to introduction of Provident Fund, certain recommendations had been made regarding introduction of provident Fund for employees in various Banks having branches in more than one State. Accordingly, such provisions were made by the banks concerned. Initially Banks were not coming within the scope of the Employees provident Fund, in short "epf", until notification dated December 18,1965 in respect of Banks

(3.) THE main basis for the challenge is to the effect that, while extending the applicability of the provisions of the Act in the notification dated December 25, 1965, which came into effect from January 1, 1966, the Banks doing business in one State or Union Territory and having no departments or branches outside that state of Union Territory were only covered and the Banks having such branches outside the state or the Union Territory were not covered. Whereas, under the amendment effected, as per the impugned notification dated March 9,2000, the Act and the Scheme have been made applicable to the Banks other than the nationalised Banks established under any central or State Act, which has resulted in discrimination between the Nationalised Banks and other Banks like the petitioners, who are also having branches in more than one State, and there is no basis for such discrimination. It is further contended that at any rate the provisions made by the concerned petitioner banks providing for payment of Provident fund or the Pension being more beneficial to the employees, the respondent should not have amended the notification.