Provident fund entitlement survives employer default, and authorities must release the full retirement balance when due.

Under the provident fund welfare scheme, an employee's retirement entitlement could not be reduced or withheld because the employer failed to remit deducted or matching contributions. The Court treated the scheme as social security legislation and noted the duties to deduct, remit, maintain member accounts, issue annual statements, and ensure prompt payment when amounts become due. In the absence of material showing effective compliance enforcement against the defaulting employer, the employee's right to payment prevailed. The provident fund authorities were therefore required to release the full amount from the existing Fund, including both employee and employer contributions.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employee entitled to provident fund withdrawal on retirement can be denied full payment because the employer failed to remit the employee's and employer's contributions to the Fund, and whether the Provident Fund authorities are bound to pay the amount from the existing Fund notwithstanding such default.

Analysis: The scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was treated as a social security measure intended to protect workers on retirement. The relevant scheme provisions required the employer to deduct and remit contributions, required maintenance of member accounts and annual statements, and cast a duty on the Commissioner to make prompt payment when the amount standing to the credit of a member becomes payable. The Court also noted that no material was shown to establish proper compliance with the annual statement requirement or effective action against the defaulting employer, including recovery measures and damages. In this setting, the employee's entitlement could not be made to depend upon the employer's default in remitting contributions.

Conclusion: The respondents were bound to pay the petitioner the full provident fund amount for the period in question, including the employee's contribution deducted from wages and the employer's contribution, and the plea of non-remittance by the employer was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the provident fund authorities were directed to release the withheld amount to the petitioner from the existing Fund within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a welfare provident fund scheme, an employee's retirement benefit cannot be defeated by the employer's failure to deposit contributions, and the fund authorities must treat the deducted and employer's shares as payable to the employee when due.

---