Please help me to in following If contractor has their own PF and ESIC code than principle employer is liable in case of default by contractor? If in this regards any latest judgement please provide.
From India, Vapi
From India, Vapi
Even if the contractor has his own code, the principal employer will be liable for non-payment of the dues.
However, if the principal employer has taken adequate steps to conduct his due delligence, then he may be considered not liable by the court
In the past, courts have declared that in case of independent contractors that do work for multiple principal employers, it is not possible for the employer to know the computation of PF that the contractor is liable for and therefore, the principal employer can not know whether PF was properly paid. In such cases, the courts have let off the PE.
You need adequate proof that you tried to ensure that the contractors have paid.
From India, Mumbai
2396However, if the principal employer has taken adequate steps to conduct his due delligence, then he may be considered not liable by the court
In the past, courts have declared that in case of independent contractors that do work for multiple principal employers, it is not possible for the employer to know the computation of PF that the contractor is liable for and therefore, the principal employer can not know whether PF was properly paid. In such cases, the courts have let off the PE.
You need adequate proof that you tried to ensure that the contractors have paid.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Colleague,
Madras High Court Judgement on exact case as appeared in The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 6 February, 2015 M/s Breaks India Ltd Vs EPFO is an important Judgement is relevant in addition to what the Colleague had briefed above. Kindly read the full judgement and decide whether it is a related case for your present situation. The crux is given below :
" with respect to the contractors, who are registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number, they are to be treated as "independent employer. The petitioner,( Breaks India Ltd) therefore, cannot be treated to be "principal employer" for the purposes of those contractors" It is a very sound judgement which is worth to read and it is available in the websites.
From India, Chennai
Madras High Court Judgement on exact case as appeared in The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 6 February, 2015 M/s Breaks India Ltd Vs EPFO is an important Judgement is relevant in addition to what the Colleague had briefed above. Kindly read the full judgement and decide whether it is a related case for your present situation. The crux is given below :
" with respect to the contractors, who are registered with the Provident Fund Department, having independent code number, they are to be treated as "independent employer. The petitioner,( Breaks India Ltd) therefore, cannot be treated to be "principal employer" for the purposes of those contractors" It is a very sound judgement which is worth to read and it is available in the websites.
From India, Chennai
Dr. Shivakumar,
Thanks for the citation.
However, I have noticed that all the cases are specific to the matter at hand and the circumstances under which the problem occurred. The judgements are therefore to be read deeply to know how much of those conditions apply to the particular case.
Unfortunately, people look at the summary of the judgement and automatically assume the same judgement will be in their own cases. So, I thought I will take the opportunity to reiterate, that (as you have pointed out), people must read the judgement carefully to know the circumstances and second, unless you are diligent in ensuring that the workers are giving their dues, the courts will not support you.
If you are careless, or in any way collaborating with the contractor in avoiding dues, paying lower, etc, the courts will make you as much liable. Of course, the first recourse is to the contractor and then to the principal employer. But if the contractor fails to pay, they are very much likely to transfer the amount to the PE
From India, Mumbai
Thanks for the citation.
However, I have noticed that all the cases are specific to the matter at hand and the circumstances under which the problem occurred. The judgements are therefore to be read deeply to know how much of those conditions apply to the particular case.
Unfortunately, people look at the summary of the judgement and automatically assume the same judgement will be in their own cases. So, I thought I will take the opportunity to reiterate, that (as you have pointed out), people must read the judgement carefully to know the circumstances and second, unless you are diligent in ensuring that the workers are giving their dues, the courts will not support you.
If you are careless, or in any way collaborating with the contractor in avoiding dues, paying lower, etc, the courts will make you as much liable. Of course, the first recourse is to the contractor and then to the principal employer. But if the contractor fails to pay, they are very much likely to transfer the amount to the PE
From India, Mumbai
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.
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg
Employer-PF-res trict to wages of Rs 6500.pdf