Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) By and order dated the October 31, 2014, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I, i.e., the respondent No. 1, had assessed the liability of Rs. 66,27,780/ - as the dues payable by the petitioner in respect of the employees and directed the said amount to be remitted within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order. This order has been assailed by the petitioner in the present petition.
(2.) M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. which has now been merged with M/s. United Spirits Ltd., i.e., the petitioner, was covered under the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act', for short). According to the petitioner, since November 1995 it had implemented three types of pension schemes in respect of its employees and the employees of its associates and group companies as they had resisted the implementation of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 ('the Scheme', for short). These three Schemes are: "a) Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. and its Associate Companies Superannuation Scheme in which the employer deposited 10 per cent of the monthly salary of each executive employed by the associate companies, irrespective of salary structure. b) Shaw Wallace Associate Companies Covenanted Staff Superannuation Fund, under which 8.33 per cent of the monthly salary of the employees belonging to the category of workmen of the principal company as well as its associate companies was deposited by the employer; c) Shaw Wallace Covenanted Staff Superannuation Scheme in which 15 per cent of the salary of the executives of the principal company was deposited irrespective of their salary structure."
(3.) These Schemes envisaged execution of a Master Policy with Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LICI', for short) and the grantees/trustees were required to remit contributions in the form of a premium towards payment of pension for the beneficiaries. These were more beneficial measures and the employees of the petitioner as well as its associate companies felt themselves more protected than the Scheme of the Provident Funds authorities.;