2016 (3) TMI 1456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1952, the same cannot be challenged in the present Writ Petition and further as per Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the same is applicable even to casual workers. Therefore the first contention putforth on the side of the appellant/petitioner is sans merit. It is an admitted fact that under Section 7-A of the Act, the appellant/petitioner is having unfettered right of raising its objection if any and the same right has also been given by the learned Single Judge and this Court need not make any observation with regard to that aspect. Appeal dismissed.
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM For Appellant : Mr.K.Srinivasan Senior Counsel for Mr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that amendment 26(2) is totally erroneous and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed. 6. Amendment 26(2) reads as follows: "(1)(a) every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment". 7. Even a cursory look of the said amendment, it is made clear that employees employed by other establishments would also cover within .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 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". 11. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already dealt with amended paragraph 26(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the same cannot be challenged in the present Writ Petition and further as per Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the same is applicable even to casual workers. Therefore the first contention putforth on the side of the appellant/petitioner is sans merit. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X