No international worker PF judgment yet binds the whole country. The Karnataka High Court struck down paragraph 83 of the EPF Scheme 1952 on 25 April 2024; the Delhi High Court upheld it on 4 November 2025, and the Supreme Court reportedly issued notice in a further challenge in March 2026. Counsel handling past demands and compliance under the EPF Scheme 2026, in force since 29 June 2026, need both rulings and the new text.

Table of Contents

What paragraph 83 did

Paragraph 83, inserted from 1 October 2008 and substituted by a notification of 3 September 2010 (effective 11 September 2010: Stone Hill, para 17), made every “International Worker” other than an “excluded employee” a member of the Fund (SpiceJet, paras 3–6). The challenges targeted contributions on the whole salary, when other employees were covered only up to INR 15,000 a month, and withdrawal only after 58 or on incapacity (substituted para 69). The exclusion was limited to detached workers under a social security agreement (SSA) and to pre-October 2008 economic agreements with a social security clause (SpiceJet, paras 8, 25–29; Stone Hill, paras 5, 17–18).

Stone Hill Education Foundation (Karnataka, 25 April 2024)

K.S. Hemalekha J decided 23 writ petitions by employers and employees, led by W.P. 18486/2012 (paras 3–4), holding:

Para 83 is subordinate legislation and “cannot travel beyond the scope of the mother Act”; with an INR 15,000 threshold for others, it “ought not to have an unlimited threshold for international workers” (para 23).
An Indian employee in an SSA country contributes on INR 15,000, while a foreign worker from an SSA country without a certificate of coverage pays on the entire salary, and a demand on “global salary” is “on the face of it, arbitrary” (para 24).
Reciprocity cannot justify the rules for non-SSA nationals, locked in until 58 (paras 25–26).
Article 14 protects foreigners, and the classification lacks intelligible differentia and nexus (para 28).

Relief: para 83 of the EPF Scheme and para 43A of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 were “struck down as unconstitutional and arbitrary”, and “all the orders passed thereof are unenforceable” (Order, (ii)).

SpiceJet v Union of India (Delhi, 4 November 2025)

A Division Bench (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela J) heard W.P.(C) 2941/2012 (SpiceJet) with W.P.(C) 6330/2021 (LG Electronics). It framed two issues: whether the classification breaches Article 14, and whether the age-58 withdrawal rule is arbitrary (para 45).

Applying Union of India v N.S. Rathnam & Sons (2015) 10 SCC 681, it held that foreign employees, who come for “2 to 5 years”, do not face the “economic duress” that uncapped contributions would cause Indian employees, so the classification is reasonable and valid under Article 14, which protects foreigners too (paras 46–56).
It relied on the Bombay High Court in Sachin Vijay Desai v Union of India (W.P. 1846/2018, 7 August 2019): international workers are “a separate and distinct class” (paras 57–59).
It declined to follow Stone Hill, where the economic-duress rationale “has not been considered; neither was it pleaded” (paras 60–61).
Para 83 implements treaty obligations; striking it down would remove “the legal basis for entering into and applying the SSA” (paras 62–63).

Challenges to amending notifications, EPFO circulars and summons also failed (paras 64, 69–74). Section 7A proceedings were to “be drawn afresh” (para 75).

International worker PF judgment split: where the courts differ

Issue	Stone Hill (Karnataka)	SpiceJet (Delhi)
Basis for treating foreign workers differently	None; no reciprocity for non-SSA nationals (paras 25–26)	Short tenure and absence of economic duress (paras 50–54)
Relationship with the parent Act	Ultra vires: unlimited threshold despite the INR 15,000 ceiling for others (para 23)	Argued (paras 34–35), but not framed as a separate issue (para 45)
Withdrawal at 58	Unjustified for non-SSA nationals (para 25)	Valid; tied to SSA obligations (paras 62–63)
Sachin Vijay Desai (Bombay)	Cited by the Union (para 12); not discussed in the reasoning	Relied on (paras 57–59)
Result	Para 83 and para 43A struck down; orders unenforceable	Petitions dismissed; s.7A proceedings afresh

Each judgment binds in its own High Court’s territory. The split does not allow employers to pick whichever ruling they prefer.

What the Supreme Court is examining

Bar & Bench and LawChakra reported on 12 March 2026 that the Supreme Court had that day issued notice in LG Electronics India Ltd v Union of India, a challenge to para 83 brought after the Delhi judgment. LawChakra adds that no final s.7A orders are to be passed against the petitioners meanwhile. We searched the Supreme Court website, Indian Kanoon and the web on 31 October 2026 and found no copy of the order, so both points are stated as reported. We also found no later order, hearing date or reported appellate decision on Stone Hill; the status above has not been checked against any later order of the Court.

Any such interim direction would bind only the proceedings before the Court. It is not a nationwide suspension of PF obligations for international workers, and employers who are not parties cannot rely on it.

What the 2026 Scheme changed for the litigation

The EPF Scheme 2026 (G.S.R. 525(E), 29 June 2026) changes the legal base, not the substance.

Past periods still turn on para 83. The 1952 Scheme is superseded “except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession” (preamble). Membership questions for periods before cessation are decided under the ceased Scheme (para 11(2), proviso), and pending para 26B inquiries must finish within two years of the Code coming into force (para 11(3), proviso). Most of the Code, including s.15(1)–(2), came into force on 21 November 2025 (S.O. 5319(E)).
New source of power. The Scheme is made under s.15(1)(a) of the Code on Social Security, 2020. Stone Hill’s vires reasoning was directed at the 1952 Act. Whether it carries over to the Code, which defines the wage ceiling “for the purposes of becoming a member under Chapter III” (s.2(89)), is a question of interpretation. Stone Hill rested on two separate grounds: Article 14 and the limits of subordinate legislation. The new statutory basis may affect the vires ground without disposing of the equality argument.
Same substance. The definition, the Nepal and Bhutan proviso and both exclusion limbs are re-enacted (paras 2(1)(j), 2(1)(f)(ii)). Corrigendum G.S.R. 703(E) of 4 August 2026 amended the published text to remove the ceiling for international workers (paras 2(1)(f)(i), 18(3)). Withdrawal remains at 58 with an SSA exception (para 51(1), (4)). The comparator ceiling, INR 15,000 in both judgments, was raised to INR 25,000 by a Gazette notification of 17 September 2026, reported as S.O. 5109(E) (PIB, 23 September 2026).
Carried-over membership. An international worker who “was a member or was required to be a member” of the 1952 Scheme is a member now (para 9(5)(i), as corrected). How that applies to employees covered by the Stone Hill order is unsettled.

We found no reported challenge to the 2026 international worker provisions as of 29 October 2026. For compliance, see PF for foreign employees in India, the employment law overview and, for employers of record, permanent establishment risk.

Common questions

What did the Karnataka High Court decide in Stone Hill Education Foundation? It struck down para 83 of the EPF Scheme 1952 and para 43A of the EPS 1995 under Article 14 and held orders under them unenforceable.

Did the Delhi High Court uphold PF for international workers in the SpiceJet case? Yes. It upheld para 83 and the age-58 withdrawal rule and declined to follow Stone Hill (paras 54, 61, 63).

Is paragraph 83 of the EPF Scheme before the Supreme Court? Notice was reportedly issued in LG Electronics’ challenge (reports of 12 March 2026); we could not verify the order or its status.

Does Stone Hill apply to the EPF Scheme 2026? Not directly. The 2026 Scheme re-enacts the regime under the Code; whether the reasoning carries over is a question of interpretation.

Sources

Stone Hill Education Foundation v Union of India, W.P. No. 18486/2012 (L-PF) and 22 connected petitions, High Court of Karnataka, 25 April 2024 (K.S. Hemalekha J). karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in (official copy URL not retrieved)
SpiceJet Ltd v Union of India, W.P.(C) 2941/2012 with W.P.(C) 6330/2021, High Court of Delhi, 4 November 2025. delhihighcourt.nic.in (official copy URL not retrieved; digitally signed copy held)
Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 2026, G.S.R. 525(E), 29 June 2026 (CG-DL-E-01072026-273957). Ministry of Labour and Employment. egazette.gov.in (search by Gazette ID)
Corrigenda, G.S.R. 703(E), 4 August 2026 (CG-DL-E-04082026-275186). Ministry of Labour and Employment. egazette.gov.in (search by Gazette ID)
S.O. 5319(E), 21 November 2025 (commencement of the Code on Social Security, 2020). Ministry of Labour and Employment. labour.gov.in
Code on Social Security, 2020 (Act 36 of 2020), ss.2(89), 15(1)(a). Gazette of India Extraordinary, 29 September 2020 (CG-DL-E-29092020-222111). Official URL not retrieved
“EPFO wage ceiling enhanced from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month”. PIB (Ministry of Labour and Employment), 23 September 2026, referring to the Gazette notification of 17 September 2026 (reported elsewhere as S.O. 5109(E); the release gives no S.O. number). pib.gov.in
Supreme Court notice in LG Electronics India Ltd v Union of India (challenge to para 83 of the EPF Scheme 1952). Secondary sources only: reported by Bar & Bench and LawChakra, 12 March 2026 (interim direction on s.7A reported by LawChakra only); no copy of the order found on sci.gov.in, Indian Kanoon or the web (searched 31 October 2026). barandbench.com ; lawchakra.in

International Worker PF Judgment: Delhi and Karnataka Split