From The Court Room
Behl Hospital vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. 2012 LLR 337 (Del H.C.) PF contribution is to be deposited within fifteen days from the close of the month. In addition, five days grace period is given for the purpose of remittance. In case of default, interest has to be paid as per para 38 of the scheme. If the provident fund contributions are not remitted within the prescribed period with 5 days grace period, interest will start to run as per provisions in paragraph 38 of the Scheme under the Act. The provident fund contributions are to be remitted by the employer within 15 days from the close of the month for which salary is paid after deduction of contribution. Jewel Homes (P) Ltd. vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. 2012 LLR 347 (Ker. H.C.) Damages levied under section 14B of the Act would not be reduced if financial difficulties are not explained with sufficient reasons before the concerned Authority or Tribunal. Steel Tubes Of India Ltd., Dewas vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (C), Indore. 2012 LLR 357 (M.P. H.C.) Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has definite duty to perform in law and has to apply its mind in appeal instead of putting strength of approval without considering the legal implications. Vyankatesh Shetkari Vinkari Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer and Others. 2012 LLR 379 (Bom. H.C.)
Latest Judgments
The power to exclude any establishment from the benefit of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme under the act is available to the Central Government only and that too by notification in the official gazette either prospectively or retrospectively. Regional Provident Commissioner has no such power to exclude any establishment from the benefit of the Scheme under the act. Diwakaran vs. State of Kerala. 2012 LLR 394 (Ker. H.C.) Once the name of the employee appears on the attendance register, employment relationship is proved which cannot be denied further through affidavit. When the name of an employe is there on the attendance register, such an employee cannot deny his employment with the support of an affidavit. Para 26B of the Scheme is applicable only when the dispute is between the employer and employee and not otherwise. Mani Hospital & Maternity Hospital Home vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2012 LLR 404 (Del. H.C.) When fifteen persons were found as regular employees and five person were casual labour doing massonary work, such persons cannot be included for the purpose of coverage of the establishment under the Act. Casual or temporary labours, if not connected with the normal or regular work of the establishment, cannot be counted for establishing total number of employees for covering the establishment under the Act. Sarda Gum & Chemicals vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012 LLR 416 (Raj. H.C.)
Sanctioning authority for grant or rejection of exemption application under section 17 is the Govt. and not the A.P.F.C. He has no powers to reject any such application.
A.P.F.C. while passing an order under section 7A acts as adjudicating authority and he cannot file reputation against the order of appelate tribunal setting aside his order.
Any order, if not passed by the Appropriate Authority, is not sustainable.
While an Authority passes an order after issuing notice (s), as provided under the provisions of section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, to the parties concerned and conducting an enquiry by giving them an opportunity of being heard, that Authority is vested with the power of a civil court and his such a function is deemed to be a judicial proceedings under the Indian panel code. When a subordinate authority in the hierarchy does not adhere to or abide by the decision of a superior authority, its action cannot be justified as it would be an unwholesome state in areas of quasi judicial functions and destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice.
Under the Employees' Provident Funds & miscllenious Provisions Act, the Appropriate Authority is the Government and not the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. The Regional Provident Fund CommissionerI (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India) and Ors. 2012 LLR 392 (Bom. H.C.) Section 16(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds & MP Act is not applicable to any establishment registered under the Cooperative Societies Act employing less than fiftypersons and working without the aid of power.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs. West Coast Petroleum Agency. 2012 LLR 427 (Ker. H.C.) Business Manager
May 2012
53