Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SHINGAR LIMITEDversusEMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

Shingar Limited filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a stay of recovery proceedings initiated by the Employee Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) following a Section 7A order dated 16‑01‑2026. The petition argued that the appeal against that order is pending before the Central Government Indust

AHMEDABAD PVT. PRIMARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONversusADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3213 January 2004Dismissed

A teacher employed by a municipal school sought gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but the Gujarat High Court held that teachers are not "employees" within the meaning of section 2(e) and dismissed the claim. The Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association appealed, arguing that the definition of emp

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2019 INSC 187 March 2019Dismissed

The Birla Institute of Technology (BIT) appealed against the State of Jharkhand and other respondents after a teacher who retired in 2001 claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The High Court had upheld the gratuity award, and BIT challenged the applicability of the Act to teachers, arguing that the

SANGAM SPINNERSversusREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I

2007 INSC 12234 December 2007

Sangam Spinners set up a factory on 1 September 1995 and claimed exemption from the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 under clause (d) of Section 16(1), which provided a three‑year infancy protection. In 1998, the clause was omitted by amendment Act No. 10 of 1998 with retrospective effect from 22 September 1997, and

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search