Madras High Court,EPFO Counsel for SPIC presented a recap on the genesis of the case by travelling through the Provisions

Chennai : As informed earlier , the argument on EPS case continued yesterday from 2.15 pm till the top. Counsel for SPIC presented a recap on the genesis of the case by travelling through the Provisions/Sections of the Act/Schemes.

He said that when the Pension Scheme was introduced in 1995, the Fund that was available within the erstwhile Family Pension Fund was transferred to the EPS-1995 and also the Pension Scheme wasn't started from scratches. He further said that surplus amount of over Rs.3,25,000 Crore is accessible as of now within the Pension Fund contrary to the contention of EPFO that they're penny less. In the beginning Hon'ble Judge was stating that by paying a lesser amount to EPFO, the Petitioners would draw higher amount.

At this stage, advocate appearing for Ashok Leyland submitted that the Kerala tribunal has already ruled that it's for EPFO to wisely invest and meet their commitment. He read important portions of the Kerala tribunal Judgment. Sr. Counsel appearing for ONGC informed that there's no loss to EPFO because the Petitioners will deposit the quantity they'd withdrawn with interest. Counsel appearing for FCI said that when an employee in an unexempted organisation is allowed pension on actual salary and another employee in an exempted organisation and covered under the identical Act/Schemes is denied amounts to discrimination for no fault of the worker.

When Hon'ble Judge said that had the money been deposited by the workers with EPFO right from the start, they might have earned more because the rate of interest prevailed at that time of your time was very high and Trust has enjoyed the advantages, Advocates clarified that both EPFO and TRUSTS have invested the fund as per the rules issued by the Central Government/EPFO and therefore the investments by the TRUST are under the supervision/control of EPFO under the Act/Schemes.

Advocates have also clarified the subsequent points:

• The Fund can't be used either by Employer or by the Trust.
• No Distinction between the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments has been made within the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
• The impugned letter dated 31-05-2017 was issued with none authority since the Ministry of Labour & Employment has confirmed in an exceedingly RTI reply that it's not given any approval for issuing the letter dated 31-05-2017.
• EPFO has no authority to interpret the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
• The case is one and therefore the same for the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments.
• Just in case of Exempted Establishments, both the workers and employers have contributed 12% on actual salary. within the case of EPFO transfers the fund from PF Account to retirement savings account and pay pension on actual salary. within the case of employees of Exempted Establishments, the retired employees will transfer the quantity withdrawn by them with interest as notified by EPFO.
• Exemption is given on a primary condition that the advantages won't be but what has been provided.
• Exemption has been given only to take care of Provident Fund and not the Pension Fund.
• 80% of the staff (pensioners) belonging to unexempted establishments are paid pension on actual salary whereas 20% of employees (pensioners)belonging to Exempted Establishments aren't. it's against the Judgment of Supreme Court.
• Advocates made it clear that there's no closing date to exercise the choice.
• All the Petitioners and their employers contributed to Provident Fund on actual salary even before the introduction of EPS 1995

Advocates have also clarified the subsequent points:

1. The Fund can not be used either by Employer or by the Trust.
2. No Distinction between the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments has been made within the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The impugned letter dated 31-05-2017 was issued with none authority since the Ministry of Labour & Employment has confirmed in a very RTI reply that it's not given any approval for issuing the letter dated 31-05-2017.
4. EPFO has no authority to interpret the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
5. Matters is one and also the same for the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments.

Categories: EPFO UPDATE