Vikrant Tyres Employees Union v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation

NC:(2026:KHC:20502( WP(No.(36597(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(15 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ANANT(RAMANATH(HEGDE( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(36597(OF(2025((L-PF)( BETWEEN:(( (

1., VIKRANT,TYRES,EMPLOYEES,UNION,, A,REGD.,UNION,,REGISTERED,, UNDER,THE,TRADE,UNIONS,ACT,,1926,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,GENERAL,SECRETARY,, 64,,KRS,ROAD,,MYSURU-570016., ,

2., VIKRANT,TYRES,NIVRUTHA,NAUKARARA, KSHEMABHIVRUDHI,SANGHA,, REGISTERED,UNDER,THE,KARNATAKA,SOCIETIES, REGISTRATION,ACT,,1960,REPRESENTED,, BY,ITS,GENERAL,SECRETARY, TH582,,7 ,C,CROSS,,1,STAGE,,HEBBAL,,,

MYSURU-570016, …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI,L,MURALIDHAR,PESHWA,ADVOCATE),

Digitallytisigned AND:(by0BELUR (RANGADHAMA NANDINI 1., THE,EMPLOYEES,PROVIDENT,FUND,ORGANISATION, Location:0HIGH (A,STATUTORY,BODY,UNDER,, COURT0OF THE,MINISTRY,OF,LABOUR,AND,EMPLOYMENT,,KARNATAKA UNION,OF,INDIA), (REPRESENTED,BY,REGIONAL,PROVIDENT, COMMISSIONER),HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,, ND109-128,,GAYATHRI,PURAM,,2 ,,STAGE,,, MYSURU-570019., ,

2., M/S,JK,TYRE,AND,INDUSTRIES,LTD.,, (REGISTERED,UNDER,COMPANIES,ACT,,1956), HAVING,ITS,OFFICE,AT,KRS,ROAD,,METAGALLI,,, MYSURU-570016,

(REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K N VASUKI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SMT B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17-3-2025 PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT IN ANNEXURE N AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNFAIR, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, AGAINST THE WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order at Annexure - N. In terms of the said order dated 17.03.2025, the application filed by the petitioners for the relief under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (Scheme, 1995) is rejected.

¶2Respondent No.2 is the employer. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the registered Unions of the employees of respondent No.2.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the members of the petitioners' Union submitted

joint application for pension on higher wages under the Scheme, 1995 and their claim for higher pension is supported by the Trust Rules of respondent No.2 - employer. Respondent No.2 is an exempted Establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and not exempted under paragraph No.39 of the Scheme, 1995.

¶4It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the members of the petitioners' Union are making periodical contribution to the pension fund on full wages and for this reason, they made an application for granting necessary benefit/pension on higher wages under the Scheme, 1995 and in terms of the impugned order at Annexure - N, the application is rejected.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to reasons in the impugned order, more particularly, unnumbered sub-paragraph as well as the fourth paragraph in page No.2 of the order to reject the petitioners' application. Respondent No.1 has referred to Rule 11 of The Trust Rules, to reject the application, which has no application to the petitioners -Union or respondent No.2.

¶6Learned counsel to substantiate his contention would also refer to Annexure - A, the Trust Rules applicable to respondent No.2 and would invite the attention of the Court to Rules 11 and 15 of the said Trust Rules. Rule 11 of the said Rules would refer to the 'Nomination' and Rule 15 of the said Rules provides for 'Members Contribution' to the Provident Fund.

¶7These two Rules in the aforementioned Annexure - A do not incorporate in Rule 11 referred to in the impugned order. As can be seen from the impugned order, the first respondent has rejected the claim on the premise that Rule 11 extracted in the impugned order does not provide for exercising the joint option.

¶8Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would defend the order.

¶9Learned counsel for the second respondent would support the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶10The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶11Rule 11 of the Trust Rules applicable to respondent no. 2 relate to nomination and Rule 15 provides for employees contribution to the provident fund. Rule 11 referred to in the impugned order is not applicable to the petitioners and respondent No.2.

¶12This being the case, the Court is of the view that the impugned order is passed without there being any application of mind as Rule 11 quoted in the impugned order does not refer to the petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶13Hence the following: ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.03.2025 at Annexure-N passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, Regional Office, Mysuru is quashed.

(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner's application for higher pension on higher wages as per the provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 keeping in mind the law laid down in Employees Provident

Fund Organisation and Another vs Sunil Kumar B And Others1.

(iv) The application shall be considered by taking into consideration relevant documents and contributions, if any, made.

(v) The exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

1 (2023) 12 SCC 701