Equal treatment under provident fund law fails where international workers face unequal contribution burdens without rational nexus.

Subordinate legislation under the EPF welfare framework must stay within the object of the parent Act and satisfy Article 14. The Karnataka High Court examined para 83 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and para 43A of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, which imposed a different contribution regime on international workers by requiring contributions on the entire salary without the ceiling applicable to other employees. The Court held that the classification lacked intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the statutory purpose, and that reciprocity-based social security arrangements did not justify the unequal treatment, particularly for workers from non-SSA countries. The provisions were held arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the parent Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether para 83 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and para 43A of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge was examined on the touchstone of the constitutional guarantee of equality and the settled test of permissible classification. The Court noted that while the Central Government has power under Sections 5 and 7 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to frame and modify the Scheme, subordinate legislation must remain within the scope and object of the parent enactment. The EPF legislation was found to be a welfare measure intended primarily to secure retirement benefits for employees in the lower salary bracket, whereas the impugned provisions placed international workers under a materially different regime by requiring contribution on the entire salary without the ceiling applicable to other employees. The Court held that the classification did not satisfy the requirements of intelligible differentia and rational nexus, and the asserted basis of reciprocity through social security agreements did not justify the differential treatment, especially for workers from non-SSA ies.

Conclusion: The impugned para 83 and para 43A were held to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and ultra vires Article 14 and the parent Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate legislation under a welfare statute cannot create an unreasonable classification that departs from the object of the parent Act and imposes unequal burdens without a rational nexus to the legislative purpose.

---