2010 (4) TMI 1169 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to 50% of the provident fund amount.
2. Validity of the nomination under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3. Applicability of general law of succession.

Summary:

1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to 50% of the provident fund amount:
The plaintiff, a cousin of the deceased Joazinho Dias, claimed entitlement to 50% of the provident fund amount based on a nomination dated 23/02/2001. However, the entire provident fund amount was paid to defendant No. 3, the sister of the deceased, based on an earlier nomination dated 29/05/1998. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share of the provident fund amount as he was not a legal heir under the general law of succession.

2. Validity of the nomination under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
The court examined the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Scheme framed thereunder. It was noted that the Act does not have a provision similar to Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, which conferred absolute rights to nominees. The court referred to the Apex Court's decision in Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi, which held that a nominee under the Insurance Act, 1938, only had the right to receive the amount on behalf of the heirs and not an absolute right to the money. The court concluded that the same principle applies to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the nominee is merely authorized to receive the amount for the benefit of the heirs.

3. Applicability of general law of succession:
The court held that under the general law of succession and particularly Article 1969 of the Civil Code, 1867, defendant No. 3, being the sister of the deceased, was entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Joazinho Dias. The plaintiff, being only a cousin, was excluded from inheriting any part of the estate.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share of the provident fund amount and that the entire amount rightly belonged to defendant No. 3 as the legal heir of the deceased.