Dear All experts
pl. give me the suggestion regarding i have query regarding the pf to be deducted on stipend payment made to trainees in a pharmaceutical firm
we have paid the stipend to some of our trainees now the question is weather pf will be deducted or not from stipend payment? if not than is there any judgement on it?
NIlesh
From India, Mumbai
11pl. give me the suggestion regarding i have query regarding the pf to be deducted on stipend payment made to trainees in a pharmaceutical firm
we have paid the stipend to some of our trainees now the question is weather pf will be deducted or not from stipend payment? if not than is there any judgement on it?
NIlesh
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friend, For Trainees you need to pay PF contributions as per the Apex Court Judgement - Mangalore Araco VS Regional PF Commissioner. Stiphend is not wages. G.K.Manjunath Sr. Manager-HR
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Friend,
Pl. find the news report from the Hindu on the subject.
A trainee is not an employee: apex court
Legal Correspondent
They do not come within the ambit of EPF Act
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that an apprentice or a trainee is not an employee and the employer is not liable to contribute Provident Fund for him or her.
A Bench, comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice R. V. Raveendran, held that trainees are apprentices engaged under the Standing Order of an organisation or under the Apprentices Act and will not come within the ambit of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Bench noted that Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act "defines an employee to include an apprentice, but, at the same time, makes an exclusion in the case of an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders. Under the Model Standing Orders an apprentice is described as a learner who is paid allowance during the period of training." Therefore, employers are not obliged to contribute to the PF for them.
The Bench, by its order, upheld a judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of 45 trainees of the Central Arecanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Co-op. Ltd, Mangalore, claiming PF payment. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Mangalore, had held that the trainees were employees for the purpose of the Act and the respondent was liable to pay the quantified amount.
The company challenged this order in the High Court and the court concluded that trainees were not employees as per the Act and reversed the RPFC's order.
Dismissing the appeal, the apex court held that "in the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were apprentices engaged under the "Standing Orders" of the establishment. That being so, the view of the learned single judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted."
G.K.Manjunath,
Sr. Manager-HRl
From India, Bangalore
Pl. find the news report from the Hindu on the subject.
A trainee is not an employee: apex court
Legal Correspondent
They do not come within the ambit of EPF Act
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that an apprentice or a trainee is not an employee and the employer is not liable to contribute Provident Fund for him or her.
A Bench, comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice R. V. Raveendran, held that trainees are apprentices engaged under the Standing Order of an organisation or under the Apprentices Act and will not come within the ambit of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Bench noted that Section 2 (f) of the EPF Act "defines an employee to include an apprentice, but, at the same time, makes an exclusion in the case of an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders. Under the Model Standing Orders an apprentice is described as a learner who is paid allowance during the period of training." Therefore, employers are not obliged to contribute to the PF for them.
The Bench, by its order, upheld a judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of 45 trainees of the Central Arecanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Co-op. Ltd, Mangalore, claiming PF payment. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Mangalore, had held that the trainees were employees for the purpose of the Act and the respondent was liable to pay the quantified amount.
The company challenged this order in the High Court and the court concluded that trainees were not employees as per the Act and reversed the RPFC's order.
Dismissing the appeal, the apex court held that "in the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were apprentices engaged under the "Standing Orders" of the establishment. That being so, the view of the learned single judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted."
G.K.Manjunath,
Sr. Manager-HRl
From India, Bangalore
That does not mean that all trainees are excluded from the purview of EPF Act. Even without verdict of Court, it is a well settled law as per Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Act that trainees engaged as per provisions of the certified Standing Orders are excluded from PF. Also those who are engaged following the provisions of Apprentice Act are also apprentices nd not employees not coming under the purview of any Labour Act. But a clear distinction has also been drawn between those who are engaged as part of provisions in the Standing Orders "of the company" or Apprentice Act and others who are just designated as trainee to deter their rights under various Labour Acts. Accordingly all trainees who are not coming under the category of apprentices under Apprentice Act or trainees under Standing Orders (of the company) are employees who are entitled to get minimum wages, PF, ESI, Bonus, Maternity benefits and other benefits equal to regular employees and protection as per Industrial Disputes Act.
One more thing, I have specified "of the company" along with Standing Orders to mean that all the companies may not have standing orders and the question of trainees under standing order does not arise in the case of companies which do have have CERTIFIED standing Orders.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
One more thing, I have specified "of the company" along with Standing Orders to mean that all the companies may not have standing orders and the question of trainees under standing order does not arise in the case of companies which do have have CERTIFIED standing Orders.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
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.
Online payment of PF mandatory from 1.1.2016.pdf