Employees’ Provident Funds (Fifth Amendment) Scheme, 2017

In the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme), in paragraph 68J,-

(a) sub-paragraph (2) shall be omitted;
(b) proviso to sub-paragraph (3) shall be omitted;
(c) for sub-paragraph (6), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely;-
“(6) No advance shall be granted to the member under sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (3) unless
he produces a self-declaration to that effect.”.
3. In the said Scheme, in para 68N, for sub-paragraph (2), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted,
“(2) No advance shall be paid to the member under sub-paragraph (1) unless he produces a self declaration
to that effect.”.

Provident Fund Updates

LLR PF Update image

May 2017

  • Determination of money based on balance sheet would not suffice the purpose of section 7-A of EPF Act. Del. HC 528
  • Only nominee of the deceased would be entitled to receive PF dues. Bom. HC 485
  • The Tribunal may waive/reduce the amount of pre-deposit for appeal. Del. HC 528
  • Not producing attendance/wages register etc. would attract adverse inference. Del. HC 526
  • Number of employees is to be decided by EPF Authority and not High Court. P&H HC 536
  • Delay in taking action by EPF Authority would not condone levy of damages.P&H HC 538
  • Non consideration of financial crisis faced by industry for reduction of damages, needs reconsideration on remand. Ker. HC 534
  • Depositing EPF dues after prosecution will be a mitigating circumstance. Ker. HC 454
  • Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal is not valid on application for adjournment. Karn. HC 479
  • EPF Authority cannot file writ petition against order of the EPF Tribunal. Karn. HC 478
  • High Court not to interfere in finding of facts by EPF authority and affirmed by Appellate Tribunal. Pat. HC 502
  • EPF Tribunal empowered to modify or annul the order of EPF authorities. Mad. HC 504
  • Exclusive employment of pigmy agent will establish employer-employee relationship for coverage under EPF and MP Act. Bom. HC 484
  • Reviewing Authority with quasi-judicial powers must give reasons with order. Ori. HC 486
  • Married daughter not entitled to claim share from provident fund accumulation of her deceased father. Bom. HC 485
  • EPF Tribunal can direct the mode in which the relief is granted to party. Cal. HC 518
  • Burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who pleads. Del. HC 526
  • An employee cannot be covered under Act simultaneously by two employers. P&H HC 536
  • EPF Tribunal is empowered to decide question of law and facts.  MP HC 531
  • Non-issue of formal exemption order is a lapse of EPF Department. Cal. HC 522
  • Employees of one employer, working for another employer, are not to be covered under the Act when their wages are paid by the other employer.   P&H HC 536
  • EPF Tribunal to decide controversies in appeal instead of dismissing them. Karn. HC 479
  • EPF Authority is to pass a speaking order supported with reasons.  Bom. HC 484
  • Receipt of a notice is to be presumed when dispatched by registered post. Ori. HC 486
  • Rehabilitation package by the Government is rightly considered by the Tribunal in allowing the payment of dues in installments.    Cal. HC 518
  • Admission of appeal before Tribunal is conditional for pre-deposit of 75% of the determined amount.  Del. HC 528
  • Burden of proof lies upon the party who has special knowledge of the facts. Del. HC 526
  • Acceptance of inspection charges applies only after exemption is granted. Cal. HC 522

April 2017

  • Mens rea (guilty mind) is the main factor for deliberately delaying the deposit of EPF contributions. Supreme Court 337
  • ‘Computer oriented services’ not within the ambit of “the establishment rendering expert service” for coverage under the Act. Bom. HC 341
  • No limitation is prescribed for determination of damages for late deposit of provident fund contributions.Ori. HC 382
  • No appeal lies in Tribunal against an order pertaining to levy of interest for delayed deposit. Mad. HC 380
  • Rate for damages for delayed deposit of PF dues be taken on initiation of proceedings.            Ori. HC 382
  • Review against order u/s 7A of EPF Act is maintainable when error is apparent. Ker. HC 375
  • Appeal before the Tribunal is to be filed within 60 days of the impugned order. Mad. HC 380
  • Recovery before expiry of limitation period of appeal would be denial of justice. Mad. HC 380
  • Appeal not writ petition to be filed against an order of EPF authority.  Karn. HC 374
  • Order of attachment before expiry of limitation for filing appeal to be set aside.            Mad. HC 380
  • Tribunal can waive or reduce the amount to be deposited by the employer on filing appeal. Mad. HC 380
  • Proceedings would continue when a party stops appearance indefinitely. Ori. HC 406
  • Damages for delayed deposit of PF contributions can’t be waived.  Ori. HC 382
  • EPF Appellate Tribunal should be liberal when the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the High Court. Ori. HC 406
  • An appeal will be tenable against a composite order under sections 7-Q and 14-B of the Act.  Mad. HC 380
  • Amount recovered before limitation period of appeal is to be refunded. Mad. HC 380
  • Pleas of power-cut, financial problems etc. not mitigating factors for levying damages for delayed deposit of contributions. Ori. HC 382
  • Writ petition is not maintainable if alternate remedy of appeal is available. Ori. HC 406