MUMBAI MAZDOOR SANGH

VS

THE R.P.F.C. [2000 (84) FLR 764 HC-BOM]

OR

NITON INDUSTRIES

VS

UNION BANK INDIA [2000(2) LLN 515 HC-BOM]

-    WHEN WILL TWO UNITS OF THE SAME COMPANY / PROPRIETOR GET CLUBBED FOR DETERMINING GOVERAGE / APPLICABILITY OF THE EPF ACT

-       WHEN CAN THE OWNER CLAIM THAT THE UNITS ARE DIFFERENT & DISTINCT

-       WHAT IS THE TEST FOR DETERMINING FUNCTIONAL INTEGRETY OF THE UNITS FOR DETERMINING EPF COVERAGE

-    the mere fact that the accounts of two factories were annually integrated into one for the purposes of the i.t act  or company’s act would not make them a single establishment for e.p.f  act

-    e.p.f act is not applicable to all factories & establishments employing 20 or more

-    as per 1(3) (a) IT is applicable only to FACTORIES falling under schedule-i

-      as per 1(3)(b) it is applicable to non-factory establishments only if there is special notification bringing them under E.P.F.

-      THE TESTS FOR DETERMINING FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY IS OUTLINED IN DETAIL IN THE NITON LTD CASE

PF COMMISSIONER

VS

SHIV KUMAR JOSHI [2000 (84) FLR 183 SC] OR 2000-I-LLJ-552

     CAN A EPF member claim status of ‘consumer’ and claim damages from the pf commissioner for delayed settlement amounting to defective service.

     THE DEFINITION OF ‘CONSUMER’ WOULD INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE HIRER [IN THIS CASE THE EMPLOYER] BUT ALSO THE BENEFICIARY [IN THIS CASE THE EPF MEMBER]

     EPF SCHEME LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES FOR DEFECTIVE / DELAYED SERVICE

PUNJAB & SIND BANK

VS

ASHOK AGGARWAL [1999 (83) FLR-370 HC-DEL]

-      an employee who had to give 3 months notice quit without giving sufficient notice

-    can employer deduct notice pay from pf dues of the employee ?

     THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE EPF ACT  FOR SUCH DEDUCTION.  ON THE CONTRARY THERE IS EXPRESS PROHIBITION IN THE ACT AGAINST MAKING DEDUCTION FROM THE EMPLOYEES PF

Top

1

S.K.NASIRUDDIN BEEDI MERCHANT LTD

Vs

CENTRAL P.F.COMMISSIONER

2001(I)LLJ 840 [SC]

1  

2

BEEDI ROLLING WAS GOT DONE THROUGH HOME WORKERS ENGAGED THROUGH CONTRACTORS

ARE SUCH HOME WORKERS TO BE COVERED UNDER EPF SCHEME BY PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER

ACT IS APPLICABLE TO HOME WORKERS ENGAGED THROUGH CONTRACTORS AND HENCE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER IS LIABLE TO ENSURE EPF COVERAGE OF SUCH HOME WORKERS ALSO.

2

SHREE CHANDEO SUGAR MILLS

Vs

UNION OF INDIA

2001 (88) FLR 939

 [SC]

1

2

3

  4

5

AS PART OF A CLOSURE SETTLEMENT MANAGEMENT AGREED TO PAY A LUMPSUM TO WORKERS TOTALLING Rs.35 LAKHS

THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE WORKMEN PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION WILL BE MADE FROM THE LUMPSUM EXCEPT 7% TOWARD UNION FUNDS

EPF AUTHORITIES DEMANDED EMPLOYEES  AND EMPLOYERS SHARE OF CONTRIBUTIONS ON THIS AMOUNT

COMPANY THOUGH AGREED TO PAY EMPLOYERS CONTRI-BUTION ARGUED THAT THE SETTLEMENT FORBADE THEM FROM DEDUCTING EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION

IS EPF AUTHORITIES DEMAND FOR BOTH SHARES JUSTIFIED ?

1

2

BY ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE WORKMEN THE COMPANY CANNOT WASH AWAY ITS LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT AND REMIT BOTH THE SHARES

IF THROUGH THE AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT AGREED NOT TO MAKE ANY DEDUCTION THEY SHOULD REMIT BOTH THE EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTIONS.