SC To Consider If Reference To Larger Bench Is Needed In View Of RC Gupta Case

Background

• The name of the case was Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors. v. Sunil Kumar B and Ors.
• Several judgements of the High Courts had quashed the Employee’s Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014, which was appealed before the Court.
• The issue of referral to a higher bench came up as a result of the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the EPFO.
• R.C. Gupta Case
• The six month opt-in window for making uncapped pension contributions was struck down in the judgement.
• The date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme is the date from which the option exercised is to be reckoned with for the calculation of pensionable salary.
• It is not a cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme.
• A good scheme should not be derailed because of a cut-off date, especially if the employer deposited 12 percent of the actual wage rather than the ceiling limit.

Pleas of the Parties

• The Supreme Court, in the case of R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO and Ors., had given a judgement without considering aspects like remittance.
• The Government has accepted the judgement and issued a notice for implementation of the notice and later an arbitrary distinction was tried to be made.
• The petitioner’s counsel stated that certain provisions have not been taken into consideration by the Court and he suggested for framing an issue on the correctness of the judgement and refer the case to a three judge bench if they find substance.

Observations of the Court

• A ruling of a coordinate bench cannot be ignored.
• The question of accuracy of the judgement cannot be considered.
• The Court stated proper course of action would be referring the matter to a larger bench when any doubts are raised.
• Prima facie, the case is to be considered.
• The Supreme Court took into consideration the matter of dispute on referral of the case to a higher bench.

What is your opinion on the EPFS? Do you think the matter should be referred to a higher bench? Tell us in the comments section below!