English Typing
Paragraph
It
is
disturbing
that
recent
restrictions
on
early
withdrawals
from
the
Employees'
Provident
Fund
should
stir
up
angry
passions
to
such
an
extent
that
worker
protests
turned
violent
in
Bengaluru.
After
this
incident,
the
labour
ministry
announced
a
rollback
of
the
rules
it
had
introduced
on
February
10.
While
the
ministry
may
be
right
in
its
assessment
that
the
protests
were
sparked
by
a
"misinformation
campaign",
it
needs
to
shoulder
some
blame
for
poor
communication.
In
the
last
three
years,
there
have
been
one
too
many
changes
in
the
rules
governing
the
EPF.
Each
of
these
changes
has
caused
so
much
confusion
and
has
been
preceded
by
so
little
public
debate
that
it
is
not
surprising
that
employees'
unions
should
perceive
them
as
attempts
to
confiscate
the
hard-earned
savings
of
workers.
What
has
attracted
the
ire
of
workers'
unions
now
is
the
February
notification
by
the
Centre
imposing
new
restrictions
on
premature
withdrawals
from
the
EPF,
by
workers
who
are
between
jobs.
Earlier
rules
allowed
employees
to
claim
their
entire
accumulated
balance
in
the
EPF
before
the
age
of
54
if
they
remained
unemployed
for
two
consecutive
months.
The
new
rules
state
that
they
can
cash
out
their
own
contributions,
but
the
employer's
contribution
and
the
interest
on
it
would
be
locked
in
until
the
age
of
57.
Nor
was
there
any
official
notification
on
whether
the
locked-in
sums
would
earn
any
interest.
The
labour
ministry
has
tried
to
rationalise
this
by
stating
that
the
rules
were
meant
to
ensure
that
every
worker
has
a
reasonable
retirement
corpus,
and
argued
that
the
bar
on
withdrawals
only
applied
to
3.67
per
cent
of
the
employer's
contribution
(the
other
8.33
per
cent
goes
into
a
pension
scheme).
But
this
ignores
the
very
real
hardships
faced
by
low-income
workers.
While
financial
theorists
ask
Typing Editor Typed Word :