Employer Making EPF Contribution Under Central Act Can’t Be Compelled To Contribute For Same Employee Under State Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Contents News/Article Date:4th July 2023
Relating to which Act: The Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Penalty under the Act: Whoever, for the purpose of avoiding any payment to be made by himself under this Act [the Scheme, the [Pension] Scheme] or the Insurance Scheme] or of enabling any other person to avoid such payment knowingly makes or causes to be made any false statement or false representation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine of five thousand rupees, or with both].
Applicable to which State: All the States and Establishments to be covered by these Acts
Type: The observations we made by a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal while hearing a petition challenging a communication issued by the State whereby the petitioner-company was called upon to deposit contributions under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir EPF Act, 1961, based on some inspection conducted by the Provident Fund Inspector
Pertains to: Case Title: M/s Delton Infra Pt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K and another
Relevance of this news: Karma Global is in the business of HR Services, Payroll, Outsourcing and Regulatory Compliances right from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its role, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing, On-boarding, Employee Life Cycle, Statutory, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
Karma Global has set up its offices in the UK, USA, UAE, Canada and South East Asia and is fully into providing solutions for workplace issues, employment law advice, immigration and negotiation, representation in employment tribunals and involvement in leading cases, addressing HR issues in line with Labour Laws, payroll, staffing and talent acquisition.
And in the current instance: The Petitioner-company claims to have obtained the registration under Central Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and further claims to have been regularly depositing the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) in respect of all its 107 employees including 54 working in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir in connection with maintenance and operation of Vodafone sites. The case projected by the Petitioner in the present petition is that Respondent No. 2 without holding any further enquiry into the matter and affording any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, on its own, worked out the arrears payable by the Petitioner on account of EPF contribution, administrative charges and damages etc. and served the Petitioner-company with the notice for payment of Rs. 16,17,565 and a similar communication was also issued to Vodafone Essar Space Tel Ltd. Jammu. The Petitioner has impugned both the communications addressed to the Petitioner-company and to the Principal Employer of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner argued that the Petitioner cannot be forced to pay the amount for the employees working for the Petitioner in respect of whom the Petitioner-company has already been depositing the contribution in the account of its 107 employees including 54 working in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. He further argued that without conducting any enquiry, the impugned communications have been issued.
Subject: Employer Making EPF Contribution Under Central Act Can’t Be Compelled to Contribute for Same Employee Under State Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Appended is the complete news item
Employer Making EPF Contribution Under Central Act Can’t Be Compelled to Contribute for Same Employee Under State Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Delton Infra Pvt. Ltd vs. State of J&K and Another – (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (16 Jun 2023)
Once the employer is contributing EPF under the Central Act, the same cannot be compelled to make a contribution under the State Act
Service
The Petitioner-company claims to have obtained the registration under the Central Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and further claims to have been regularly depositing the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) in respect of all its 107 employees including 54 working in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir in connection with maintenance and operation of Vodafone sites. The case projected by the Petitioner in the present petition is that Respondent No. 2 without holding any further enquiry into the matter and affording any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, on its own, worked out the arrears payable by the Petitioner on account of EPF contribution, administrative charges and damages etc. and served the Petitioner-company with the notice for payment of Rs. 16,17,565 and a similar communication was also issued to Vodafone Essar Space Tel Ltd. Jammu. The Petitioner has impugned both the communications addressed to the Petitioner-company and to the Principal Employer of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner argued that the Petitioner cannot be forced to pay the amount for the employees working for the Petitioner in respect of whom the Petitioner-company has already been depositing the contribution in the account of its 107 employees including 54 working in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. He further argued that without conducting any enquiry, the impugned communications have been issued.
Once the Petitioner is making a contribution under the Central Act, then the Petitioner-company cannot be compelled to contribute for the same employee under the State Act of 1961. This Court is of the considered view that once the employer is contributing EPF for a particular employee under either of the Acts, then the employer cannot be compelled to make a contribution under the other Act, as the employer would then make a contribution twice for the same employee.
The officer duly authorized by the Government can determine the amount due from an employer and for that purpose, may conduct an enquiry. In the present case, no such enquiry was conducted by the Respondents. The Petitioner-company is right in submitting before this Court, that the petitioner has been condemned unheard.
The impugned communications are quashed. The Respondents shall pass fresh orders after taking note of the contributions made by the Petitioner under the Central Act. The Petitioner cannot be compelled to make a contribution under both Acts for the same employee.