AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, J.—The question before the High Court was whether the amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (the scheme) framed u/s 5 of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) was invalid and unconstitutional. The High Court answered the question in the negative.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The validity of paragraph 26(2) of the Scheme was challenged before the High Court on the following grounds:
(i) The amendment to paragraph 26(2) of the Scheme is invalid for non-compliance of Section 7(2) of the Act.
(ii) The compulsory contribution amounts to denial of minimum wages.
(iii) The amendment is impracticable and unworkable.
(iv) The amendment is ultra vires the Act and Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
By a detailed and well reasoned judgment, the High Court has rejected all the four contentions noted above. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the consequences reached by the High Court therein.
The special leave petitions are dismissed
Intervention applications are dismissed.