-->

EMPLOYEE - PF


• A Managing Director or the Director of a Company cannot be an employee to be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc, Provisions Act.
Sanatan Ghosh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1990) 2 CHN 249: 1990 LLR 742 (Cal HC).


• The employees of the contractors 'supplying products to an establishment will not attract the applicability of the Act.
Karachi Bakery (represented by its Managing Partner), Hyderabad v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad, (1991) 62 FLR 627: 1991 LLR 24 (AP HC).


• An employee retired after 55 years will not be liable to be covered under the Act on his re-employment if he has already withdrawn his full amount of accumulation on his retirement.
Bombay Printers Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) 1 LLJ 816: 1991 LLR 443: 1991 (63) FLR 106 (Bom HC).


• Document showing that 3 sons of the petitioner were in his employment and were being paid wages – They come within the definition of 'employee'.
Goverdhanlal Purohit v. R.P.F. Commissioner, 1993 LLR 575 (Raj HC).


• Lady member of a society working for wages at a branch engaged in the manufacture of papads etc. will be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act,
Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad, labalpur v. Union of India, 1994 LIC 1308: (1994) 68 FLR 1129: (1994) 11 LLI 610: 1994 LLR 307 (MP HC).


• It is for the Central Government to bring a casual employee under Employees' Provident Fund Act.
Employers Association of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1994 LLR 479 (Raj HC).


• Persons collecting and returning raw material on consideration cannot be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act.
Punjab Khadi MandaI v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, (1997) 1 LLN 480: 1996 LLR 490 (P&H HC).


• 'Home workers' as covered under the Beedi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act will be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act.
Bagi Beedi Factory v. The Appellate Authority, (1997) 77 FLR 971: (1999) III LLJ Supp 739: 1998 LLR 23 (Kar HC).


• Employees engaged through contractor will be covered under Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act.
D.C.M. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1998) 79 FLR 913: (1998) 1 LLJ979: 1998 LLR 532 (Raj HC).


• Weavers/Artisans working at home will be covered by EPF & MP Act as employees.
Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh (represented by its Secretary, R. Gmmnsigamani Ponniah) v, Union of India (represented by Secretary, Ministry of Labour) New Delhi, (2000) 1 LLJ 290: 1999 LLR 551 (Mad HC).


• Directors of a company working on part-time basis discharging extra duties apart from director will be employees under Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Tin Printers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, (2001) 88 FLR 187: 2000 LLR 1175 (Cal HC).


• An employer will not be liable to pay 12% EPF contribution for an excluded employee under the EPF & MP Scheme.
Motor Industries Company Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2001) 88 FLR 316: (2000) Il LLj 1606: 2000 LLR 1309 (Karn HC).


• Partners of an establishment receiving salaries will not be included as employees for its coverage under EPF & MP Act.
Om Roller Flour Mills v. Union of India, 2002 LIC 1229: 2002 LLR 683: 2002 LIC 1229: 2002 (IV) LIN 127: 2002-IlI LLJ 228 (Cal HC).


• The drivers, as engaged by the Managers of the Company whose wages are reimbursed by the Company through the Managers, will be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act since the Company has been providing uniforms, foot wears, monsoon equipment, winter clothing and even overtime when their services were required by their Managers beyond their duty hours.
BASF India Ltd. v. M. Gurusamy, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa, (2004) 2 Mah LJ 164: 2004 LLR 463 (Bom HC).


• A partner of a firm having a status of beneficial will not be an employee either to be covered or counted under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Prakash D. Shah v. Union of India, (2004) 1 Mah LJ1043: 2004 LLR 218 (Bom HC).


• Only those casual workers engaged due to abnormal contingency will be excluded for the applicability of the EPF & MP Act.
Autocrat Tours v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2004) II CLR 763: (2004) 106 FJR 392: (2004) 102 FLR 268: (2004) III LLJ 143: 2004 LLR 780 (Del HC).


• A school, covered under the Provident Funds Act, will not be liable for payment of contributions of the employees such as drivers, conductors as engaged by the transport contractor for providing transportation.
Springdales School v, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 47 (Del HC)


• The unloaders, as sitting inside the truck bringing bamboos for manufacture of paper, will be employees under the Provident Funds Act.
Orient Paper Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 177 (MP HC).


• The definition of employee under the Provident Funds Act is an independent and comprehensive enough and cannot be borrowed from the other enactments.
Orient Paper Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 177 (MP HC).


• The trainees, in an establishment covered by the Industrial Employment (5.0.) Act, will be excluded from the Provident Fund Act.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. M/s. Central Aercanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd., Mangalore, (2006) 2 SCC 381: AIR 2006 SC 971: (2006) 2 SCR 399: (2006) 1 LIN 529: (2006) 1 CLR 861: 2006 LLR 263 (SC).


• Persons engaged as apprentices but required to do work of regular employees are rightly covered under Provident Funds Act.
N.E.P.C. Textile Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Coimbatore v, Asst. P.F. Commissioner, Coimbatore, 2007 LLR 535 (Mad HC).


• Under Employees' Provident Funds Act 'employee' has been given wider meaning for coverage.
Delhi Public School, Ghaziabad v. Enforcement Officer, U.P. (Employees') Provident Fund, Ghaziabad, 2007 LLR 1082 (All HC).


• Provident Funds Act does not distinguish between regular employee or casual or those engaged through the contractor.
Jaggi & Co. v. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 2008 LLR 126 (Del HC).




Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More