A Very Important judgment on EPF by Madras High Court.
Hon’bleMr.M.Duraiswamy, J. Brakes India Ltd (Brakes Division), Sholinghur-631 102, rep. by its Vice-President (Pers. & HRD) Vs Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Vellore rep. by its Regional Provident Funds Organization
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952-
Sections 2(1) and 14B – Provident fund dues and damages – Liability for depositing PF
contribution – In respect of employees of independent contractor who was allotted and has been holding his own PF Code No. – Not of principal employer but of the Contractor – Contractor
committed default in paying EPF contributions – EPF Authority initiated proceedings under section 7A of the Act against the contractor directing the principal employer to pay the amount if the contractor is found having committed the default – Petitioner – principal employer filed writ petition challenging the order of the EPF Authority – Head, EPF Authority not entitled to recover either PF contribution or damages from the principal employer filed writ petition challenging the order of the EPF Authority – Held, EPF Authority not entitled to recover either PF contribution or
damages from the principal employer – Contractors, registered with the PF Department, having
independent Code number, are to be treated as independent Code number, are to be treated as
‘Independent employer’ – However, the liability of unregistered contractors, would fail on the
principal employer in view of clause 30 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 – Accordingly writ petition is
allowed.
For Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Mohan for S. RamasubramanianAssociates, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. V.J.Latha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS:-
1. EPF Authority not entitled to recover either PF contribution or damages from the principal employer in respect of employees engaged through
contractors, registered with the PF Department, having independent Code number.
2. Contractors, registered with the PF Department, having independent Code number, are to be treated as ‘independent employer’.
3. However, the liability of unregistered contractors, for payment of EPF contributions or damages, in case of default on his part, would fall
on the principal employer, if not paid by the unregistered contractor, in view of clause 30 of the EPF Scheme, 1952.
From India, Kolkata
160Hon’bleMr.M.Duraiswamy, J. Brakes India Ltd (Brakes Division), Sholinghur-631 102, rep. by its Vice-President (Pers. & HRD) Vs Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Vellore rep. by its Regional Provident Funds Organization
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952-
Sections 2(1) and 14B – Provident fund dues and damages – Liability for depositing PF
contribution – In respect of employees of independent contractor who was allotted and has been holding his own PF Code No. – Not of principal employer but of the Contractor – Contractor
committed default in paying EPF contributions – EPF Authority initiated proceedings under section 7A of the Act against the contractor directing the principal employer to pay the amount if the contractor is found having committed the default – Petitioner – principal employer filed writ petition challenging the order of the EPF Authority – Head, EPF Authority not entitled to recover either PF contribution or damages from the principal employer filed writ petition challenging the order of the EPF Authority – Held, EPF Authority not entitled to recover either PF contribution or
damages from the principal employer – Contractors, registered with the PF Department, having
independent Code number, are to be treated as independent Code number, are to be treated as
‘Independent employer’ – However, the liability of unregistered contractors, would fail on the
principal employer in view of clause 30 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 – Accordingly writ petition is
allowed.
For Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Mohan for S. RamasubramanianAssociates, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. V.J.Latha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS:-
1. EPF Authority not entitled to recover either PF contribution or damages from the principal employer in respect of employees engaged through
contractors, registered with the PF Department, having independent Code number.
2. Contractors, registered with the PF Department, having independent Code number, are to be treated as ‘independent employer’.
3. However, the liability of unregistered contractors, for payment of EPF contributions or damages, in case of default on his part, would fall
on the principal employer, if not paid by the unregistered contractor, in view of clause 30 of the EPF Scheme, 1952.
From India, Kolkata
Very Profound Judgement !!!! It will be cited frequently and will serve as a light-house in illuminating similar cases. Thanks for sharing it here. Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
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.
Principal employer liable if contractor fails to pay wages to workers Delhi High Court Judgement.pdf
PF Judgement - SC - Trainee - 2006.doc