Dear All,
I would like to sincerely thank all of you for taking out time and responding to my query.
And special Thanks to Mr. Sumit, Mr. Mukesh, Mr. Shyam & Mr. Shekhar.
The employee in discussion is drawing a handsome salary.
Based on all the suggestions that I received, we managed to do both,
1. convince him to enroll for the same
2. roll out company policy on the matter,mentioning that such exemptions are not allowed.
Query setteld peacefully.
Thanks to CiteHr and the professionals who helped me.
Regards,
Fatima
From India, Delhi
I would like to sincerely thank all of you for taking out time and responding to my query.
And special Thanks to Mr. Sumit, Mr. Mukesh, Mr. Shyam & Mr. Shekhar.
The employee in discussion is drawing a handsome salary.
Based on all the suggestions that I received, we managed to do both,
1. convince him to enroll for the same
2. roll out company policy on the matter,mentioning that such exemptions are not allowed.
Query setteld peacefully.
Thanks to CiteHr and the professionals who helped me.
Regards,
Fatima
From India, Delhi
Employer not liable to deposit employee’s contribution
M/s Rajendranagar Bal Vihar High School filed an appeal before the Employees’ Provident fund Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the EPF authority under Section 14B of the Act. The case of the appellant is that it is a school brought under the coverage of the Act in 1982. The notification was challenged and same was upheld in the year 1988. The EPF authority allotted a Code No. on 31.03.1998 covering the establishment from the year 1990. After receiving the notice, the amount was transferred from the bank to the EPF Department but the amount of those employees who had already left the services could not be deposited.
There was no delay in depositing the contributions. The EPF authority without considering the matter levied the penalty and interests which is illegal one. The contention of the appellant is that the employer is not liable to contribute for the employees’ share during the pre- discovery period i.e. from 1990 to 1998 as it had not deducted the EPF contribution from the salary of those employees. Relying upon the case of District Exhibitors Association, Muzaffarnagar vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1321 where in the Supreme Court has held that the payment of employee’s contribution by the employer with the employer has also to pay his contribution; the Tribunal held that the employer cannot be asked to pay the employees.’
From India, Gurgaon
16M/s Rajendranagar Bal Vihar High School filed an appeal before the Employees’ Provident fund Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the EPF authority under Section 14B of the Act. The case of the appellant is that it is a school brought under the coverage of the Act in 1982. The notification was challenged and same was upheld in the year 1988. The EPF authority allotted a Code No. on 31.03.1998 covering the establishment from the year 1990. After receiving the notice, the amount was transferred from the bank to the EPF Department but the amount of those employees who had already left the services could not be deposited.
There was no delay in depositing the contributions. The EPF authority without considering the matter levied the penalty and interests which is illegal one. The contention of the appellant is that the employer is not liable to contribute for the employees’ share during the pre- discovery period i.e. from 1990 to 1998 as it had not deducted the EPF contribution from the salary of those employees. Relying upon the case of District Exhibitors Association, Muzaffarnagar vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1321 where in the Supreme Court has held that the payment of employee’s contribution by the employer with the employer has also to pay his contribution; the Tribunal held that the employer cannot be asked to pay the employees.’
From India, Gurgaon
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.
PF Judgement - Bom HC - Temp employee.doc