{"id":286083,"date":"2026-02-04T19:48:13","date_gmt":"2026-02-04T14:03:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/?p=286083"},"modified":"2026-02-04T19:50:04","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T14:05:04","slug":"rs-20-lakh-paid-to-employers-not-associated-with-social-security-fund-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/english.insurancekhabar.com\/rs-20-lakh-paid-to-employers-not-associated-with-social-security-fund-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Rs 20 lakh paid to employers not associated with social security fund"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Kathmandu. The Supreme Court has ordered an employer to pay Rs 100 to a worker&#8217;s family for not being associated with the social security fund. It has upheld the order of the fund to pay Rs 2 million 43 thousand. <\/p>\n<p>The employer had refused to pay the pension amount to his wife following the untimely death of a factory worker located in the industrial corridor of Birgunj. <\/p>\n<p>After the victim&#8217;s family appealed for legal remedy, the fund ordered to pay Rs 20.43 lakh. The employer had filed a case from the High Court to the Supreme Court demanding the cancellation of the order. <\/p>\n<p>As per the provisions of the Labor Act, the employers are compelled to pay the amount after the order given by the Fund was upheld by the High Court and even the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n<p>Following the court&#8217;s verdict, the Fund handed over the pension amount to the dependent wife of the deceased worker, Uma Devi. <\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This incident will strengthen the need to make the employers aware that the fund will bear the risk in the event of regular contribution and if it does not contribute, the entire liability will lie with the employer,&#8221; the statement said. <\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kathmandu. The Supreme Court has ordered an employer to pay Rs 100 to a worker&#8217;s family for not being associated with the social security fund. It has upheld the order of the fund to pay Rs 2 million 43 thousand. The employer had refused to pay the pension amount to his wife following the untimely [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":286081,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45077,45159],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-286083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-corporate-2-en","category-news-en"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286083"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286083\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":286084,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286083\/revisions\/286084"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/media\/286081"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insurancekhabar.com\/ikbrapi\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}