Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Adverting to the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate submitted that when the respective employers of the petitioners did not raise any objection over the direction issued by the first respondent, the petitioners, being the employees, have no locus standi to challenge the directions issued by the first respondent and only on the objection raised by the first respondent, the petitioners have impleaded their respective Societies as Respondents 2 to 6. The first respondent issued directions only after considering the financial crisis of Societies. Excessive employment, increase https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.1629 and 2453 of 2020 in the recurring expenditure of employees' salary and decrease in the business turnover due to severe private sector competition are some of the reasons for financial crisis. Therefore, only for the survival of the societies, the Government of Puducherry had taken measures for recurring revenue expenditure. Insofar as the employer's contribution towards Provident Fund is concerned, it is restricted to Rs.1,800/- i.e., 12% of the maximum salary ceiling limit of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the employer is liable to pay a maximum contribution of Rs.1800/- for an employee irrespective of their salary. However, both employer and employee without following the same, the Societies are contributing more than 12%. Attention was also drawn to the proviso to paragraph 26-A(2) of the EPF Scheme, which reads as follows: