i have question for the Trainees are employees / P.F. applicable for them please advice or share the documents for the same.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Texel,
You could have given sufficient information about the nature of your industry, what type of the trainees these are etc.
In certain industries like hotel industry, BHM students are allowed to work as "Industrial Trainees". They are allowed because it is part of their curriculum. This type of arrangement is made because students get industrial exposure during their education course and they become industry-ready i.e. they become employable. Sometimes, BHM students, during their summer vacation, work as industrial trainee on their own. In either case, hotels pay them some allowance. Since these are industrial trainees, they are not direct employees, hence PF is not applicable. However, their allowances are liable for ESI deduction.
In contrast, in some companies, freshly passed graduates are taken on roll and given the designation of "Trainee". Here the case is different and "Trainee" is a designation and they are full-time employees of the companies. Therefore, not just PF but all the statutory deductions become applicable.
Unfortunately in India, terms like trainees or apprentices are loosely used or used interchangeably. However, this is incorrect. Just today, I have given clarifying reply. Click the following link to refer it:
https://www.citehr.com/582730-employ...-trainees.html
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
7884You could have given sufficient information about the nature of your industry, what type of the trainees these are etc.
In certain industries like hotel industry, BHM students are allowed to work as "Industrial Trainees". They are allowed because it is part of their curriculum. This type of arrangement is made because students get industrial exposure during their education course and they become industry-ready i.e. they become employable. Sometimes, BHM students, during their summer vacation, work as industrial trainee on their own. In either case, hotels pay them some allowance. Since these are industrial trainees, they are not direct employees, hence PF is not applicable. However, their allowances are liable for ESI deduction.
In contrast, in some companies, freshly passed graduates are taken on roll and given the designation of "Trainee". Here the case is different and "Trainee" is a designation and they are full-time employees of the companies. Therefore, not just PF but all the statutory deductions become applicable.
Unfortunately in India, terms like trainees or apprentices are loosely used or used interchangeably. However, this is incorrect. Just today, I have given clarifying reply. Click the following link to refer it:
https://www.citehr.com/582730-employ...-trainees.html
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Mr. Dinesh has replied aptly and in detail, in nutshell any trainee who is being trained for their curriculum or for intership stipend is paid, wherein PF is not applicable and any trainee hired for job as Job Trainee PF is applicable to the best of my knowledge
From India, Ahmadabad
From India, Ahmadabad
Texel should respond to the points raised by our learned members. I would presume, the employer appointed selected candidates to be employees who are initially called as 'Trainees' who are likely to be confirmed on completion of the prescribed 'training period' satisfactorily in suitable posts, if they fail they, the unsuccessfuls will be ousted. Am I correct ? In some estts they are appointed as "Management Trainees' and some call them as Probationers. Some organisations conduct 'confirmatory appraisal' to evaluate their performances during the training period. It's commonly adopted either as 'stipend' or 'consolidated salary'. There some establishments appoints either honorary or paid trainees who are not given any assurance whatsoever, but top performers are absorbed in regular posts at par with any freshers. There are never ending disputes going on always how this training period(s) should be treated, part of regular service or not. Opinions differs. Unless their status is decided there cannot be clarity on EPF/ESI etc.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Hi,
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. Refer to A trainee is not an employee: apex court - Today's Paper - The Hindu.
From India, Bengaluru
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. Refer to A trainee is not an employee: apex court - Today's Paper - The Hindu.
From India, Bengaluru
Dear Mr Texel from Mumbai, For reasons best known to you, you have not reverted with the information asked.Inspite of this, Honoured Members continue to share their information.on the Subject "Coverage of Trainees under EPF" This demonstrates the attitude of New Age HR Professionals
From India, New Delhi
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.
Amendment to Payment of Bonus Act 2015.jpg
Circular No 1-2018 Processing of income-tax returns under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act .pdf