EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Excluding the income ceiling for newspaper industry employees in Paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 does not suffer from arbitrariness and is not violative of Article 14. The classification is based on reasonable differentia and has a rational connection to the object of ameliorating conditions in the newspaper industry. The challenge to the provision after more than forty-five years, without satisfactory explanation for delay, cannot be entertained under Article 32. Petition dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.; Respondent: Union of India; Petitioner: Anr.; Respondent: Anr.; Intervenor: Arun Kathpalia
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Original Jurisdiction: Writ Petition (c) No. 59 of 2001 / Final Judgment on Constitutionality
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, Excluded Employees, Freedom of Press, Article 14 Equality, Article 32 Writ Jurisdiction
Labour Law Constitutional Law Employees' Provident Fund Scheme Excluded Employees Freedom of Press Article 14 Equality Article 32 Writ Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Anr.

Petitioner

Anr.

Respondent

Arun Kathpalia

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Original Jurisdiction: Writ Petition (c) No. 59 of 2001 / Final Judgment on Constitutionality

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Paragraph 80(2) of Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, which excludes newspaper industry employees from the income ceiling and entitles them to provident fund benefits irrespective of pay, is unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 by singling out newspaper industry for additional burden and discriminatory treatment
  2. 2 Whether the petition challenging the benefit to employees of newspaper industry in the year 1956 can be entertained after a long delay

Ratio Decidendi

Excluding the income ceiling for newspaper industry employees in Paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 does not suffer from arbitrariness and is not violative of Article 14. The classification is based on reasonable differentia and has a rational connection to the object of ameliorating conditions in the newspaper industry. The challenge to the provision after more than forty-five years, without satisfactory explanation for delay, cannot be entertained under Article 32. Petition dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted to petitioners
  • Attack on constitutional validity of Paragraph 80(2) rejected