Dear Seniors,
Requested to help on the below mentioned cases :
We have an audit of PF at our factory, Where the Pf inspector raised demand against work contract expense.But we have paid the amount at different states to contract casual labour.we have paid 260 Rupees wage to the labourers on daily basis.Non of the labourer has worked more than 15days in a month.The Pf inspector has raised liability amount on the wages amount paid.
My question is Whether we have to pay the liability amount under PF Act 1952 ?
Requested to reply on urgent basis
Thanks&Regards
Varun Sharma

From India, Delhi
Dear Mr. Varun Sharma
Did you cross check with the PF Inspector on what grounds had he raised liability amount. Kindly study the PF ACT 1952. Study the law carefully inorder to answer their queries precisely.
Remember always these idiots are corrupted and they are demanding bride indirectly. Try to understand their body language.
With profound regards

From India, Chennai
If you have engaged casual labour in connection with your business then you are supposed to pay contributions in respect of them. The demand of PF inspector cannot be overruled. But before making payments please take an opportunity to explain your situation very well. Once the observation report is made by the enforcement officer it will become difficult to withdraw. Therefore, take the officer into confidence.
Dear skhadir,
This is a common website. Do not make such statements. Certainly, there are a lot of corrupted persons in India (perhaps there may not be any one in your place) but do not make a general statements using such words like 'idiots' in a forum like this.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K

From India, Kannur
Dear Mr. Madhu,
I haven't used vulgar words which i and many others had personally come across in linkedin and other open/common forums. I sincerely don't understand why we don't accept facts even after knowing the them. To be honest i am very straight forward personality and don't like beating around the bush nor building castle in air.
Its not about yours and my place. Not to forget that this is international forum but not just common website. The world doesnt belong to individuals instead it belongs to human beings and it is ruled and managed by human beings only. Please don't try to deviate from the topic by saying something else nor try to create any indifference's between nationalities even though i am an INDIAN.
Hope i made myself clear and i convey the right message to your goodself.
Have a nice day.
With profound regards

From India, Chennai
Dear Mr Khadir,
I am absolutely agree with you.This is international forum and professionals should express their
experience. HR professionals knows very well about the PF Inspectors.
Regards
Tribikram

From India, Delhi
Please read what I have written carefully and take it in its spirit only. I have not deviated from the topic and I have given the answer to the query to the best of my knowledge. Please also go through my other posts to see whether I have ever taken this forum as an individual's forum.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K

From India, Kannur
Dear Mr.shivkumartiwari,
Could you please explain on which ground the demand raised by PF inspector is correct ?
Regards
Tribikram

From India, Delhi
Dear Mr. Madhu,

Instead of we both exchanging words, lets help our members so that they are guided in proper way. Neither you nor me had committed any crime or sin.

Some times, labour officials are guided by employees to persue only if they are not paid as per norms or their talks with management had failed. On the other hand, employees had committed to serve their organisation while agreeing to certain norms. One has to look into all these factors before we step ahead.

I am just sharing this with you because recently, my friends old friend was fooled by HRD MINISTRY OFFICIALS when he visited them to attest his testimonials, as it was required to secure family visa. He was forced to pay money to get his work done else it would have take definitely taken more than a month or so. I am really shocked to hear that they are not ready to work without receiving additional perks(bribe). Henceforth its all a about system but not our communication part.

Moreover, even though we are not native speakers of ENGLISH, our communication patterns are far better than them as we more formal in nature. Hope you understood what i meant to convey to you.

with profound regards

From India, Chennai
boss2966
1168

As a matter of fact the PF Inspector can demand for wage sheet, attendance register, PF Remittance Details from IR Department and the Bill payment details from the Accounts department and he will compare the payment details with Wage sheet and Further PF Remittance Details. He does not have any right to claim about the payment of workmen or any other details.
As said by Mr. Khadir the PF Inspector is expecting the Vitamin M and nothing else. Please understand the Body language of that Great Personality and fulfill his requirement after bargaining, otherwise he will drag you a lot and will not allow you to work with peace of mind.
With Warm Regards
S. Bhaskar

From India, Kumbakonam
Dear Bahskar the different matter of bribe but you can easily understand the mater why not PF contribution paid for casual labor. please understand matter if we do not paid contribution we are responsible. I think there is no doubt that if we engage the labour in any rate or rate more than 6500/- than we should fill the form 11 for declaration about the epf, and if the that employee not covered any time under epf than we can take him as excluded employee,
After all if we fail to produce them as excluded employee than we are responsible why we abuse to PF inspector or enforcement officer
if I am wrong, please update me
Ashok

From India, New Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.






Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2024 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.