https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191823 The Supreme Court upheld paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, finding that newspaper establishments were validly treated as a separate class and that the exclusion of the ordinary wage ceiling satisfied Article 14 because it rested on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to extending provident fund protection. The Court also rejected the Article 19(1)(a) challenge, holding that the additional provident fund liability on newspaper employers was a welfare measure for employees and did not abridge freedom of speech and expression. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the special provident fund treatment for newspaper establishments was sustained. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:06:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191823 The Supreme Court upheld paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, finding that newspaper establishments were validly treated as a separate class and that the exclusion of the ordinary wage ceiling satisfied Article 14 because it rested on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to extending provident fund protection. The Court also rejected the Article 19(1)(a) challenge, holding that the additional provident fund liability on newspaper employers was a welfare measure for employees and did not abridge freedom of speech and expression. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the special provident fund treatment for newspaper establishments was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191823