Seniors, please let me know is this compulsory to deduct PF in case of a workers engaged for short term i.e. 2-5 days in a month? Also it is confirmed from the work order/PO that the work duration is 2-5 days. Is so please post the clause in the Act.
From India, undefined
From India, undefined
Dear 
,
Even you engaged any person for one day or you bring naka labour, you need to deduct EPF from the wages you pay to him and remit in to PF account alongwith your share.
Effective from 01.11.1990 waiting period to enroll any employee as member of PF was brought down from 60 days to 1 day. I am giving existing Para 26 (1) (a) of the scheme hereunder for your ready reference.
"Every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment."
This paragraph came in to force from 01.11.1990.
You can exclude the employee from PF if he is not a member of EPF before and you are offering him wages more than Rs. 577 per day (i.e. 577 x 26 = 15000). You need to maintain Form 11 New.
From India, Mumbai
2556Even you engaged any person for one day or you bring naka labour, you need to deduct EPF from the wages you pay to him and remit in to PF account alongwith your share.
Effective from 01.11.1990 waiting period to enroll any employee as member of PF was brought down from 60 days to 1 day. I am giving existing Para 26 (1) (a) of the scheme hereunder for your ready reference.
"Every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment."
This paragraph came in to force from 01.11.1990.
You can exclude the employee from PF if he is not a member of EPF before and you are offering him wages more than Rs. 577 per day (i.e. 577 x 26 = 15000). You need to maintain Form 11 New.
From India, Mumbai
Dear All
PFA notes on coverage of temporary workers for PF. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in RPFC v T S Hariharan, temporary workers engaged to do work which is not the regular work of the establishment are not employees as per the EPF Act and therefore they need not be covered under EPF Act. In another Judgement, Bombay HC has also held that workers employed for short period should be treated as casual and not covered under Sec 2 (f) of the EPF Act.
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
)
From India, Bangalore
PFA notes on coverage of temporary workers for PF. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in RPFC v T S Hariharan, temporary workers engaged to do work which is not the regular work of the establishment are not employees as per the EPF Act and therefore they need not be covered under EPF Act. In another Judgement, Bombay HC has also held that workers employed for short period should be treated as casual and not covered under Sec 2 (f) of the EPF Act.
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear N Nataraajhan ji,
Thanks for your contribution.
My views on the judgment quotes by you are as under:
As regards to RPFC v T S Hariharan (SC): It is very old judgment of 1971. There is an amendment in Law in 1990.
As regards to BAI v UOI (Mumbai HC Nagpur Bench): You need to read full text of judgment. Workers employed for short period on some abnormal contingency or emergency work beyond the control of management are treated as casual.
From India, Mumbai
Thanks for your contribution.
My views on the judgment quotes by you are as under:
As regards to RPFC v T S Hariharan (SC): It is very old judgment of 1971. There is an amendment in Law in 1990.
As regards to BAI v UOI (Mumbai HC Nagpur Bench): You need to read full text of judgment. Workers employed for short period on some abnormal contingency or emergency work beyond the control of management are treated as casual.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr Korgaonkar
Pl refer MP HC decision in which the Supreme Court has approved the MP decision on appeal in 1995 after the amendment of Para 26, and therefore T S Hariharan's case is still valid.
Thanks and Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :)
From India, Bangalore
Pl refer MP HC decision in which the Supreme Court has approved the MP decision on appeal in 1995 after the amendment of Para 26, and therefore T S Hariharan's case is still valid.
Thanks and Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear N Nataraajhan ji,
Which decision you are talking about? Can you please provide the details and if possible Judgment text?
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................
From India, Mumbai
Which decision you are talking about? Can you please provide the details and if possible Judgment text?
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................
From India, Mumbai
Dear N Nataraajhan ji,
Sorry to bothered you.
Your one sentence post is automatically deleted from the discussion. There was no attachment. I therefore request you to kindly post it again.
Please do not forget to draw lines when your post contains one or two sentence / lines just as what I did in my earlier post so that your post is not deleted.
From India, Mumbai
Sorry to bothered you.
Your one sentence post is automatically deleted from the discussion. There was no attachment. I therefore request you to kindly post it again.
Please do not forget to draw lines when your post contains one or two sentence / lines just as what I did in my earlier post so that your post is not deleted.
From India, Mumbai
Dear N Nataraajhan ji,
Thank you so much once again. Because of your discussion, I had an opportunity to read Hariharan judgement once again and abreast myself. I read it earlier also and shared my views also in one of the threads in this forum.
According to Supreme Court in Hariharan case, employment of few persons on account of some emergency or for a very short period necessitated by some abnormal contingency which is not regular feature of the establishment or which does not reflect its business prosperity or its financial capacity and stability would not attract the provisions of the act.
The ratio of this decision in Hariharan case still applies despite amendment to Para 26 of the P.F. Scheme in 1990.
Hope I am not making any conceptual mistake. According to me, I once again repeat, PF is applicable even you employ any person for one day also.
Exceptions:
1. Excluded employee within the meaning in the Act; and
2. a person employed on some emergency or for a very short period necessitated by some abnormal contingency which is not regular feature of the establishment.
I am attaching the said judgment of Hariharan for your reference. Hope you will agree with me now.
From India, Mumbai
Thank you so much once again. Because of your discussion, I had an opportunity to read Hariharan judgement once again and abreast myself. I read it earlier also and shared my views also in one of the threads in this forum.
According to Supreme Court in Hariharan case, employment of few persons on account of some emergency or for a very short period necessitated by some abnormal contingency which is not regular feature of the establishment or which does not reflect its business prosperity or its financial capacity and stability would not attract the provisions of the act.
The ratio of this decision in Hariharan case still applies despite amendment to Para 26 of the P.F. Scheme in 1990.
Hope I am not making any conceptual mistake. According to me, I once again repeat, PF is applicable even you employ any person for one day also.
Exceptions:
1. Excluded employee within the meaning in the Act; and
2. a person employed on some emergency or for a very short period necessitated by some abnormal contingency which is not regular feature of the establishment.
I am attaching the said judgment of Hariharan for your reference. Hope you will agree with me now.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr Korgaonkar
PFA notes on Judgements as per which the Supreme Court has upheld the MP HC's decision on appeal in 1995 - after the amendment of para 26 of the EPF Act 1952. Therefore the SC judgement in TS Hariharan's case is still valid. But the employment as you rightly said has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in the judgement.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :)
From India, Bangalore
PFA notes on Judgements as per which the Supreme Court has upheld the MP HC's decision on appeal in 1995 - after the amendment of para 26 of the EPF Act 1952. Therefore the SC judgement in TS Hariharan's case is still valid. But the employment as you rightly said has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in the judgement.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear Harikrishnan Sir,
I have been employed as a executive by one of the PSU - SPMCIL from 30.07.2018 as a fixed term contract employment.
I have been paid consolidated 50000 Rs. but except salary i'm not even getting single benefit from the employer i.e no PF, leaves, gratuity etc.
Can I claim the above as none of the above where stated in the offer of employment. Pls reply
From India, Bengaluru
I have been employed as a executive by one of the PSU - SPMCIL from 30.07.2018 as a fixed term contract employment.
I have been paid consolidated 50000 Rs. but except salary i'm not even getting single benefit from the employer i.e no PF, leaves, gratuity etc.
Can I claim the above as none of the above where stated in the offer of employment. Pls reply
From India, Bengaluru
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.
Coverage of construction & contact workers under PF 22.1.2015.pdf
PF notfications - International Workers.doc