- within Employment and HR, Insurance, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
On November 4, 2025, in writ petitions filed by Spice Jet Ltd. and LG Electronic India Pvt. Ltd. challenging the 2008 and 2010 notifications amending the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme, the Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the amendments requiring International Workers in India to contribute to the provident fund without any wage ceiling limit and the provisions on age limit for provident fund withdrawals, which is fixed at 58.
The petitioners argued that the amendments were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Equality before law). The Court, however, found the classification made under the EPF Scheme between Indian and International Workers to be reasonable, as it was based on the typically shorter duration of employment and the absence of economic duress for foreign employees.
In its rationale, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam & Sons, emphasizing that reasonable classification is permissible if based on intelligible differentia. The Court also distinguished its view from a contrary Karnataka High Court decision in Stone Hill Education Foundation v. Union of India, noting that the latter did not consider the reasonability of classification based on economic duress faced by Indian workers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
