https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183557 Notifications extending the Employees Provident Fund regime to private sector banks while excluding nationalised banks were examined under Article 14. The text states that employees' service conditions were substantially alike, both sets of banks were governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and regulated by RBI, and no material difference justified separate treatment. It also notes that conditional legislation remains subject to constitutional review, and that exemption under Section 17 of the EPF Act did not validate the unequal classification. On that reasoning, the exclusion of nationalised banks was treated as lacking intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the statutory object, rendering the notifications vulnerable under Article 14. en-us Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:37:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183557 Notifications extending the Employees Provident Fund regime to private sector banks while excluding nationalised banks were examined under Article 14. The text states that employees' service conditions were substantially alike, both sets of banks were governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and regulated by RBI, and no material difference justified separate treatment. It also notes that conditional legislation remains subject to constitutional review, and that exemption under Section 17 of the EPF Act did not validate the unequal classification. On that reasoning, the exclusion of nationalised banks was treated as lacking intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the statutory object, rendering the notifications vulnerable under Article 14. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183557