- (1.) Order The question before the High court was whether the amended paragraph 26 (2 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (the scheme) framed under S. 5 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) was invalid and unconstitutional. The High court answered the question in the negative.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The-validity of paragraph 26 (2 of the Scheme was challenged before the High court on the following grounds: (I) The amendment to paragraph 26 (2 of the Scheme is invalid for non-compliance of S. 7 (2 of the Act. (Ii) The compulsory contribution amounts to denial of minimum wages. (Iii) The amendment is impracticable and unworkable. (Iv) The amendment is ultra vires the Act and Article 14 and Art. 19 (1 (g) of the Constitution.
(3.) By a detailed and well reasoned judgment, the High court has rejected all the four contentions noted above. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High court. We agree with the reasoning and the consequences reached by the High court therein.;