Statement–Assumption — “Why don’t you go to court if the employer does not pay your Provident Fund (PF) contribution?” Assumptions: I. Courts can intervene in employer–employee disputes of this nature. II. Employers are obligated to pay the statutory PF contribution to employees.

Introduction / Context:
The advice to pursue legal remedy presupposes both the court’s jurisdiction and the existence of a violated obligation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• PF is a statutory social-security contribution with employer liability under applicable law.
• Courts (or tribunals) can adjudicate non-payment disputes and grant relief.

Concept / Approach:
Legal action is sensible only if (a) a duty exists, and (b) a forum can enforce it. Both premises are required for the suggestion to be rational.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Without I, suggesting court action would be pointless (no jurisdiction).2) Without II, there is no breach to complain of, making court action baseless.3) Therefore both I and II are implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Most statutory contribution disputes are explicitly triable by designated forums.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/II-only/Either/Neither omit part of the legal-viability foundation.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “go to court” requires only jurisdiction or only duty; in practice, it presumes both.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.