{"id":235988,"date":"2004-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004"},"modified":"2015-10-24T22:23:45","modified_gmt":"2015-10-24T16:53:45","slug":"s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/02\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nWrit Petition No.14096 of 2002\n\n\n1. S.Matharaiyan\n2. M.Selvarajan\n3. Syed Kali Mullah\n4. R.Megarajan\n5. N.Chittibabu\n6. D.Shanmugam\n7. K.Ramadoos\n8. C.Delli\n9. Mohamed Yusuff\n10.D.Mohan\n11.K.Ponnusamy\n12.E.S.Sampathkumar                                     ..      Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Assistant Provident Fund\n     Commissioner (Pension),\n   No.20, Royapettah High Road,\n   Chennai-600014.\n\n2. The Managing Director,\n   Metropolitan Transport\n     Corporation,\n   Chennai-600002.                                      .. Respondents\n\n        Prayer:  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nfor the issuance of a writ of Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.C.Manohar\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.D.Narayanan-R1\n                Mr.N.V.V.Krishna-R2\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The short question that  arises  for  my  consideration  in  the  writ<br \/>\npetition  is  whether  the  petitioners  are  entitled  to  pension  under the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; Pension Scheme, 1995,  (for  brevity  &#8216;EPS,  1995&#8217;)  as  agreed  to<br \/>\nbetween  the  petitioners and the second respondent-Transport Corporation in a<br \/>\nsettlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (for short &#8216;the<br \/>\nI.D.  Act&#8217;), on 13.2.1999 wherein it is provided as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Pension:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        18.  A new Pension  Scheme  shall  be  framed  for  the  Employees  of<br \/>\nTransport  Corporations  and  the  draft  scheme  will be sent to the Regional<br \/>\nProvident Fund Commissioner for getting exemption and upon getting  exemption,<br \/>\nthe employees recruited after 01.09.98 shall come under the new pension scheme<br \/>\nand  as  per the Employees&#8217; Provident Fund Act, the employer&#8217;s contribution of<br \/>\nthose employees will be remitted to the Pension Fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>        19.  However, the  employees  who  are  on  the  rolls  of  the  State<br \/>\nTransport Undertakings as on 31.08.98 shall have the option of joining the new<br \/>\npension  scheme  or  continue  to  be  a  member  in  the  existing  Employees<br \/>\nContributory Provident Fund Scheme.  This exercise of giving option  shall  be<br \/>\ncompleted within a period of 3 months from the date of signing this settlement<\/p>\n<p>subject   to   getting   the   exemption  from  the  Regional  Provident  Fund<br \/>\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Any option exercised for this purpose shall be final.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.2.  Clause 16A of the EPS, 1995, provides as follows:<br \/>\n        &#8221; 16A.  Guarantee of Pensionary  Benefits:-  None  of  the  pensionary<br \/>\nbenefits  under  this  Scheme shall be denied to any member or beneficiary for<br \/>\nwant of compliance of the requirements by the employer under sub-paragraph (1)<br \/>\nof paragraph 3 provided, however, that the employer shall not be  absolved  of<br \/>\nhis liabilities under the Scheme.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.3.  It is not in dispute that the petitioners exercised their option<br \/>\nto  avail  the  pension  as  per  the  EPS, 1995, and also agreed to pay their<br \/>\ncontribution for the period from May 1975 to August 1976 as contemplated under<br \/>\nthe EPS, 1995, as demanded  by  the  second  respondent-  Corporation  in  the<br \/>\nproceedings dated 2.8.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.4.   However,  the second respondent-Corporation had stopped pension<br \/>\nunder the EPS, 1995, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.157, Labour and  Employment<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 27.9.2000, which reads as follows:-<br \/>\nGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU<br \/>\nABSTRACT<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217;  Provident  Fund  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act, 1952 and the<br \/>\nPension Scheme framed under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act in  respect  of  State<br \/>\nTransport Undertakings-Non-applicability of the ActOrders-Issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<pre>\nLABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT\nG.O.Ms.No.157                           Dated 27.9.2000\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        As per wage settlement 1998, a Pension Scheme called &#8216;Tamil Nadu State<br \/>\nTransport  Corporation  Employees&#8217;  Pension  Fund&#8217; has been formulated for the<br \/>\nbenefit of employees of the Tamil Nadu Transport Undertakings with effect from<br \/>\n1.9.1998.   This  has  been  formulated  in  accordance  with  the  provisions<br \/>\ncontained   in   Section   16(1)(b)  of  the  Employees&#8217;  Provident  Fund  and<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.  After framing  of  the  said  scheme  the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217;  Provident  Fund  and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, will not<br \/>\napply to the Tamil Nadu Transport Undertakings.  As a result, the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nTransport Undertakings totally get excluded from the purview of the Employees&#8217;<br \/>\nProvident  Fund  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act,  1952  with  effect from<br \/>\n1.9.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Similar  request  from  other  Public  Sector  Undertakings   for<br \/>\nexclusion  from the purview of the Employees&#8217; Provident Fund and Miscellaneous<br \/>\nProvisions Act, 1952 citing this as precedent will not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)<\/p>\n<p>                                R.RATHINASAMY,<br \/>\n                        SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.5.  It is under such circumstances, the petitioners  have  preferred<br \/>\nthe  above  writ  petition  seeking  a  writ  of  Mandamus to direct the first<br \/>\nrespondent to continue to pay pension under Employees Provident  Fund  Pension<br \/>\nScheme 1995 to the petitioners from the month April 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Mr.C.Manohar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the petitioners,<br \/>\nsubmits  that  the  settlement  dated  13.2.1999  entered  into  between   the<br \/>\npetitioners  and  the  second  respondent-Transport  Corporation under Section<br \/>\n12(3) of the I.D.  Act, confers a statutory right on the petitioners  to  seek<br \/>\nthe  benefit  of the EPS, 1995, to which they had already opted as per Clauses<br \/>\n18 and 19  of  the  said  settlement  dated  13.2.1999  and  also  paid  their<br \/>\ncontribution  for the period from May 1975 to August 1 976 even as demanded by<br \/>\nthe second respondent-Transport Corporation in the proceedings dated 2.8.1999.<br \/>\nSuch right cannot be interfered with or such benefit cannot be denied.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Per contra, Mr.D.Narayanan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent-Corporation,  submits  that  the  G.O.Ms.No.157, Labour and<br \/>\nEmployment Department, dated 27.9.2000, referred to above, was issued  by  the<br \/>\nGovernment  by  exercising  the  power conferred under Section 16(1)(b) of the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which  reads<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>16.  Act not to apply to certain establishments:-<br \/>\n(1) This Act shall not apply:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a) &#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)  to  any  other establishment belonging to or under the control of<br \/>\nthe Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are  entitled<br \/>\nto the benefit of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance<br \/>\nwith  any  scheme  or  rule  framed  by  the  Central  Government or the State<br \/>\nGovernment governing such benefits;\n<\/p>\n<p>and therefore, the employees of the Transport Corporation are not entitled  to<br \/>\nthe  benefit of the old scheme viz., EPS, 1995, after framing the scheme under<br \/>\nthe Employees&#8217; Provident Fund and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act,  viz.,  new<br \/>\nscheme, as per the said Government Order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   I  have  given a careful consideration to the submissions of both<br \/>\nsides.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.1.  It is settled law that denial of pensionary benefit amounts to a<br \/>\nviolation of Article  14  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  as  the  same  is<br \/>\narbitrary, vide  <a href=\"\/doc\/1566\/\">Deokinandan Prasad v.  State of Bihar,<\/a> reported in 1971 2 SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>330.  That apart, when the employees are entitled to have an option to  select<br \/>\nthe  better  pensionary  sch  eme,  as  in the instant case, as provided under<br \/>\nClauses 18 and 19 of the said settlement dated 13.2.1999  entered  into  under<br \/>\nSection 12(3)  of  the  I.D.    Act,  such better pensionary benefit cannot be<br \/>\ndenied to the employees by way of an executive order,  assuming  the  same  is<br \/>\nmade  by  exercising  the  power  conferred  under  Section  16(1)(b)  of  the<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,  by  ignoring  the<br \/>\nearlier terms of the settlement entered into between the parties under Section<br \/>\n12(3) of  the  I.D.    Act,  because  pension  is  not a bounty payable on the<br \/>\nsweet-will and pleasure of the Government or the Transport Corporation in  the<br \/>\ninstant case, but, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right<br \/>\nvested  in  a  Government  servant  and  the  employees of the State Transport<br \/>\nCorporation in the instant case.  The right  of  the  petitioners  to  receive<br \/>\npension is property, which cannot be arbitrarily denied, which would otherwise<br \/>\nattract  Article 14 of the Constitution of India, by a mere executive order of<br \/>\nthe State.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.2.  It, therefore, follows that the denial of right  to  pension  to<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  is  a  clear  violation of the terms of the settlement dated<br \/>\n13.2.1999 entered  into  between  the  parties  under  Section  12(3)  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act,  which  had  already  been acted upon by the second<br \/>\nrespondent-Corporation itself, viz., by calling on  the  petitioners  to  make<br \/>\ntheir contribution for the period from May 1975 to August 1976 and pursuant to<br \/>\nwhich, the  petitioners had also contributed the same.  The Government as well<br \/>\nas the second respondentTransport Corporation  failed  to  take  the  relevant<br \/>\nfacts  into  consideration  while passing the said Government Order as well as<br \/>\nthe consequential  proceedings  of  the  second  respondent-Corporation  dated<br \/>\n1.6.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.3.   Hence,  I  am  satisfied  that  the petitioners are entitled to<br \/>\npension under the Employees&#8217; Pension Scheme, 1995, and accordingly, the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  is  directed  to  settle  entire dues since February 2002 within a<br \/>\nperiod of eight weeks from today  and  to  disburse  the  prospective  pension<br \/>\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.4.   Since  it  is  brought  to  my  notice  that  there are several<br \/>\nemployees whose pensionary benefit under the Employees&#8217; Pension Scheme, 1995 ,<br \/>\nand Employees&#8217; Provident Fund  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act,  had  been<br \/>\nstopped  quoting  the  said  G.O.Ms.No.157,  Labour and Employment Department,<br \/>\n27.9.2000 and the consequential proceedings of  the  second  respondent  dated<br \/>\n1.6.2002,  even  though  those  employees  are not before this Court, I repose<br \/>\nconfidence on the second respondent that they would take appropriate  decision<br \/>\nin  the  matter  concerned  with those similarly placed employees of the other<br \/>\nTransport Corporations also, whose pension was stopped quoting the  Government<br \/>\nOrder  dated  27.9.2000, without standing on any technicality that they should<br \/>\nalso approach this Court for their redressal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>25.02.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>ATR<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Assistant Provident Fund<br \/>\nCommissioner (Pension),<br \/>\nNo.20, Royapettah High Road,<br \/>\nChennai-600014.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Managing Director,<br \/>\nMetropolitan Transport<br \/>\nCorporation,<br \/>\nChennai-600002.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/02\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN Writ Petition No.14096 of 2002 1. S.Matharaiyan 2. M.Selvarajan 3. Syed Kali Mullah 4. R.Megarajan 5. N.Chittibabu 6. D.Shanmugam 7. K.Ramadoos 8. C.Delli 9. Mohamed Yusuff [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-24T16:53:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-24T16:53:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1371,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\",\"name\":\"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-24T16:53:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-24T16:53:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-24T16:53:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004"},"wordCount":1371,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004","name":"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-24T16:53:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-matharaiyan-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-25-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Matharaiyan vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 25 February, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235988","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}