Dear All,
Given below is a Judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sarda Gum & Chemicals vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgement: The petitioner industrial unit was aggrieved by the order passed by the regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jodhpur and Appellate order passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, holding that the petitioner Unit is covered by the EPF Act, 1952 since number of employees found at the time in the industrial unit were more than 20. The commissioner and the Tribunal had held that the petitioner was covered by the provisions of the said Act and was liable to pay provident fund contribution in respect of such 20 workmen. It was found that out of 21 who were said to be employed in the factory of the petitioner, 8 persons were temporarily labourers employed for the purpose of carrying on the repairs of the factory building and the Court observed that it cannot be held that they were employed for the normal business of the establishment. The Court further observed that it naturally depends upon the facts of each case as to whether the so called temporary workmen are regularly employed in connection with the normal and usual course of the business or they are engaged in the performance of some work which had no relation with the normal and regular course of business of the establishment. Even if casual or temporary workers are engaged occasionally or intermittently to meet some temporary or casual work, such workmen cannot be considered to be employees for the purpose of section 1 (3)(a) of the Act. The high Court held that unless temporary or casual workers are found to be regular employees of an industrial unit, the same cannot be included to make 20 workmen of an industrial unit for the purpose of determining whether the establishment is covered under the definition in section 1 (3)(a) of the Act. The full bench decision of the court found the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were found to be non speaking orders and deserve to be quashed. The court set aside the orders.
Thanks and regards.
Keshav Korgaonkar
Shantadurgaent.com,Insurance Advisors,Corporate Advisors,Legal Advise,Wage and salary,Shantadurgaent.com,Labour Compliance Audit,SSI registration,NOC from
From India, Mumbai
2555Given below is a Judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sarda Gum & Chemicals vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgement: The petitioner industrial unit was aggrieved by the order passed by the regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jodhpur and Appellate order passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, holding that the petitioner Unit is covered by the EPF Act, 1952 since number of employees found at the time in the industrial unit were more than 20. The commissioner and the Tribunal had held that the petitioner was covered by the provisions of the said Act and was liable to pay provident fund contribution in respect of such 20 workmen. It was found that out of 21 who were said to be employed in the factory of the petitioner, 8 persons were temporarily labourers employed for the purpose of carrying on the repairs of the factory building and the Court observed that it cannot be held that they were employed for the normal business of the establishment. The Court further observed that it naturally depends upon the facts of each case as to whether the so called temporary workmen are regularly employed in connection with the normal and usual course of the business or they are engaged in the performance of some work which had no relation with the normal and regular course of business of the establishment. Even if casual or temporary workers are engaged occasionally or intermittently to meet some temporary or casual work, such workmen cannot be considered to be employees for the purpose of section 1 (3)(a) of the Act. The high Court held that unless temporary or casual workers are found to be regular employees of an industrial unit, the same cannot be included to make 20 workmen of an industrial unit for the purpose of determining whether the establishment is covered under the definition in section 1 (3)(a) of the Act. The full bench decision of the court found the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were found to be non speaking orders and deserve to be quashed. The court set aside the orders.
Thanks and regards.
Keshav Korgaonkar
Shantadurgaent.com,Insurance Advisors,Corporate Advisors,Legal Advise,Wage and salary,Shantadurgaent.com,Labour Compliance Audit,SSI registration,NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Labour laws.ppt
A-Role of labour contractors in global production networks -A-1 Imp..pdf
All the labour laws.doc