A.Lala, J. - (1.) SBI Home Finance Limited, petitioner No. 1 company is promoted by the State Bank of India. By making this writ petition by the pen of one Sri Pradip Kumar Bose, a shareholder and Chief Manager, Legal, the petitioner company sought for certain orders in nature of declaration that the show-cause notice dated 28th September, 2000 and the orders dated 30th November, 2000 and 3rd January, 2001 are illegal, unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the same should be directed to be withdrawn/revoked/reviewed/cancelled and/or quashed along with the one letter of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the month of September, 2000. At the interim stage, the petitioner company obtained an interim order for not releasing a sum of Rs. 22,79,379 under an order of attachment. Such sum was lying in an account of State Bank of India itself. The interim order as above was made for a limited period. On a day when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls, the same was dismissed. Subsequently, upon being satisfied with an application the order, was recalled. On the day when the application of further interim order for recalling was made the entire sum was realised by the Provident Fund Authority from the bank by the operation of the order of attachment. However, when this Court found that there is no necessity of passing any further interim order but the application can be heard alongwith directed to the writ petition the same direction was given. There is no factual dispute available herein. The dispute is only a legal dispute as to whether the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is entitled under law to reject a scheme for which an application was made by the petitioner company under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 or not. Such order of rejection is the part and parcel of annexure 'M' to the interlocutory application being dated 28th January, 2001.
(2.) Mr. Hirak Kumar Mitter, learned senior counsel, appearing in support of the petitioners/employers contended before this Court that the scheme which has been framed is much more beneficial than the ordinary benefit given under the Act. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta intervened in this matter on behalf of all the employees and supported the stand of the employer. Therefore, both the employers and employees are happy with the scheme.
(3.) According to me, the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 was introduced by the Central Government on 16th November, 1995 by operation of section 6A of the Employees' Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is pertinent to mention that section 6A speaks for Employees' Pension Scheme. Section 6A separates section 6 of the Act by a non-obstanti Clause under section 6A(2) of the same. Section 6 speaks about contribution by the employer at the rate of 8.33% of the basic wages and the employees' contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer and if any employee so desirous, by an amount of exceeding such percentage of his basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any), subject to the condition that the employers shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution payable under such section. There is also a provision of enhancement up to 10% in certain circumstances. The whole intention of this Court to highlight the scope and ambit of the two sections is to give a clear picture that whenever someone will come with a proposal under the scheme as per 6A there is no necessity of any further interpretation. If the amount is lower it will automatically attract section 6 of the Act. In other words, unless and until a proposal gives room for consideration for better benefit or minimum at par with the benefit, there is no scope of making application under the scheme of 1995 as per section 6A of the Act. Both Mr. Mitter and Mr. Sengupta on behalf of the employers and employees contended before this Court that not only the scheme which has been proposed by the employer is nearer to the scheme framed under section 6 but far more superior having at least 30% of benefit leaving aside various relaxations.;