REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE

VS.

RPFC JABALPUR

2003(96) FLR 693 [HC-MP-SB]

1  







2



3

EPF AUTHORITIES HAS ISSUED A NOTIFICATION DATED 8.2.95 EXCLUDING/EXEMPTING ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYING ONLY PENSION DRAWING EXSERVICEMEN FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT

ACCORDINGLY THE PF AUTHORITIES DECODED THE ESTABLISHMENTS

IN CASE THE DECODED ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYED A FEW CASUAL/CONTRACT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT EX-SERVICE MEN PENSIONER ARE THEY TO BE COVERED UNDER THE EPF ACT?

1

2

THE NOTIFICATION EXEMPTING WILL APPLY ONLY IF ALL EMPLOYEES ARE EX-SERVICEMEN PENSIONERS

IF SOME EMPLOYEES ARE NOT EX-SERVICEMEN PENSIONERS, THE ESTABLISHMENT CANNOT BE DECODED OR EXEMPTED

2

RADHESHYAM KHICHROLIA

VS

MP STATE CO OP.MARKETING FEDERATION

2003(96) FLR 699 [[HC-MP-SB]

1

2

3  



4

CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BEFORE SUPERANNUATION


DISCIPLINARY PROCESS COMPLETED AND TERMINATION ORDER ISSUED AFTER SUPERANNUATION DATE

RECOVER MADE FROM GRATUITY FOR LOSS/MIS APPROPRIATION


IS TERMINATION AFTER SUPERANNUATION LEGALLY MAINTAINABLE ?

1

2  

3

AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN BHAGGIRATHI JENA’S CASE [1999(82) FLR 143] NO DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY CAN BE CONTINUED AFTER SUPERANNUATION UNLESS THE SERVICE RULES SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS SUCH CONTINUANCE

 SINCE IN THIS CASE SERVICE RULES DID NOT PROVIDE SO, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TERMINATION OF SERVICE AFTER SUPERANNUATION

SINCE THERE WAS NO LEGAL TERMINATION ORDER RECOVERY FROM GRATUITY UNDER SERVICE 4(6) OF GRATUITY ACT DOES NOT ARISE

3

O.M.ROLLER FLOUR MILLS

 VS 

UNION OF INDIA

2002(94) FLR 908 [HC-CAL-SB]

1

 2

THE ESTABLISHMENT HAD 16 PAID EMPLOYEES AND 5 WORKING PARTNERS DRAWING REMUNERATIONS

 EPF AUTHORITIES INSISTED ON COVERAGE CLAIMING THERE WERE MORE THAN 20 EMPLOYEES THE ESTABLISHMENT CHALLENGED THE ORDER

1

2  

QUOTING THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN SG TIN PRINTER’S CASE [2000(1)LLJ 628] HELD THAT PARTNERS [EVEN IF DRAWING REMUNERATION] CANNOT BE TREATED AS EMPLOYEE’S UNDER THE EPF ACT

SINCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS LESS THAN 20, ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT