Respected All, Greetings of the Day !
I have one query that our organization hires Management Trainees & Factory Apprentice (Not covered under Apprenticeship Act). But we do not deduct PF of this category trainees. Now I just want to know that whether it is mandatory to deduct PF contribution of these trainees/Apprentices and If Yes than as per which law of which act.
Your cooperation will be highly thank full.
Rahul
From India, Gurgaon
1I have one query that our organization hires Management Trainees & Factory Apprentice (Not covered under Apprenticeship Act). But we do not deduct PF of this category trainees. Now I just want to know that whether it is mandatory to deduct PF contribution of these trainees/Apprentices and If Yes than as per which law of which act.
Your cooperation will be highly thank full.
Rahul
From India, Gurgaon
Hi,
Yes it is mandatory to deduct PF for both Management Trainees and Factory Apprentice.
There is no separate law for it both of them come under the Provident Fund Act-1952 itself.
Madras HC on 2007 ruled that Apprentices who are engaged to do work of regular employees are covered under PF Act in NEPC Textile Ltd, Coimbatore Vs Asst. PF Commissioner, Coimbatore case.
With Regards
Mr.Thumbs Up
From India, Chennai
Yes it is mandatory to deduct PF for both Management Trainees and Factory Apprentice.
There is no separate law for it both of them come under the Provident Fund Act-1952 itself.
Madras HC on 2007 ruled that Apprentices who are engaged to do work of regular employees are covered under PF Act in NEPC Textile Ltd, Coimbatore Vs Asst. PF Commissioner, Coimbatore case.
With Regards
Mr.Thumbs Up
From India, Chennai
Apprentice (not covered undr the Apprenticeship Act) and trainee falls within the definition of an employee under section 2(f) of the EPF Act. So, it is manadatory to deduct pf from their wages/ salaries.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Dear All
PFA copy of SC Judgement on the applicability of PF for Trainees / Apprentices engaged under the Company's Standing orders. Section 2 (f) (ii) of the EPF & MP Act 1952 also very clearly excludes Apprentices engaged under the Standing orders of the establishment.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
)
From India, Bangalore
PFA copy of SC Judgement on the applicability of PF for Trainees / Apprentices engaged under the Company's Standing orders. Section 2 (f) (ii) of the EPF & MP Act 1952 also very clearly excludes Apprentices engaged under the Standing orders of the establishment.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear All
PFA copy of SC Judgement on the applicability of PF for Trainees / Apprentices engaged under the Company's Standing orders. Section 2 (f) (ii) of the EPF & MP Act 1952 also very clearly excludes Apprentices engaged under the Standing orders of the establishment.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :)
From India, Bangalore
PFA copy of SC Judgement on the applicability of PF for Trainees / Apprentices engaged under the Company's Standing orders. Section 2 (f) (ii) of the EPF & MP Act 1952 also very clearly excludes Apprentices engaged under the Standing orders of the establishment.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear Natraajhan,
Hope you would like to agree with me that reading between the lines does not make sense so far as legal implications of the EPF law are concerned. In your attachment, you have provided merely an extact of seemingly some newspaper but without providing the link of the judgment as a whole. You have not even made any mention of the date of judgment and the newspaper with dated in which the said news item appeared.
We should be aware of the fact that the background and basis of appeal and arguments in the trial on what has been held by any court of law are most relevant to be taken in to account before arriving at some definite conclusion for guidance point of view. So, any advice or guidance based merely on some news item can tend to mislead the advice seeker and the HR community, as can lead to illegal acts of the executors of labour and service laws.
Moreover, your extract of news item states, "the apex court held that "in the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were apprentices engaged under the "Standing Orders" of the establishment. That being so, the view of the learned single judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted."
The question arises, did you see if the querist has said anywhere that the apprentice was being paid only stipend (not wages), or engaged under the Standing Orders?
So, your advice, to be frank, does not seem to be tenable as against the definition of employee included in Section 2(f) of the EPF Act.
From India, Delhi
Hope you would like to agree with me that reading between the lines does not make sense so far as legal implications of the EPF law are concerned. In your attachment, you have provided merely an extact of seemingly some newspaper but without providing the link of the judgment as a whole. You have not even made any mention of the date of judgment and the newspaper with dated in which the said news item appeared.
We should be aware of the fact that the background and basis of appeal and arguments in the trial on what has been held by any court of law are most relevant to be taken in to account before arriving at some definite conclusion for guidance point of view. So, any advice or guidance based merely on some news item can tend to mislead the advice seeker and the HR community, as can lead to illegal acts of the executors of labour and service laws.
Moreover, your extract of news item states, "the apex court held that "in the case at hand, trainees were paid stipend during the period of training. They had no right to employment, nor any obligation to accept any employment, if offered by the employer. Therefore, the trainees were apprentices engaged under the "Standing Orders" of the establishment. That being so, the view of the learned single judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted."
The question arises, did you see if the querist has said anywhere that the apprentice was being paid only stipend (not wages), or engaged under the Standing Orders?
So, your advice, to be frank, does not seem to be tenable as against the definition of employee included in Section 2(f) of the EPF Act.
From India, Delhi
Dear Mr Dingra
PFA copy of the S C Judgement dated 30th Jan '2006 and also the Allahabad High Court judgement in 2010 confirming the S C ruling for information. S C has clearly held that even in the absence of certified Standing orders, since the model standing orders are automatically applicable, trainees appointed under the standing orders are not liable to be covered under PF.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :)
From India, Bangalore
PFA copy of the S C Judgement dated 30th Jan '2006 and also the Allahabad High Court judgement in 2010 confirming the S C ruling for information. S C has clearly held that even in the absence of certified Standing orders, since the model standing orders are automatically applicable, trainees appointed under the standing orders are not liable to be covered under PF.
Regards
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (HP : + 91 94835 17402 ; e-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Dear Nataraajhan,
Have you found the answer to my question, "did you see if the querist has said anywhere that the apprentice was being paid only stipend (not wages), or engaged under the Standing Orders?" on which category the quoted judgments apply?
Now another question also arises, has the querist stated anywhere that the apprentices of his company did not enjoy any right to employment or have no obligation to accept employment if offered, as per the spirit of the judgments?
Still further, another question arises, has the definition of the employee under section 2(f) been scrapped by any of the judgment referred by you?
Both the judgments reveal that distinction has to be made between the apprentices employed on wages with the right of employment and merely on stipend basis having no right to claim employment to fall within or outside the definition of sec. 2(f).
Moreover, any judgment has to be analised in its true spirit depending upon the facts, characteristics and the circumstances of events or nature of the case. Needless to emphsize, any court judgment is case specific only and cannot be applied universally and automatically on all types of cases unless that is allowed through the judgment of the court to be made applicable in another case by a competent court of law that too having similarity of nature, characteristics or circumstances.
SO, MERE TERM "APPRENTICE" HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING ANY CASE LAW IN ALL THE CASES OF THE INDUSTRY IN ANY WAY.
From India, Delhi
Have you found the answer to my question, "did you see if the querist has said anywhere that the apprentice was being paid only stipend (not wages), or engaged under the Standing Orders?" on which category the quoted judgments apply?
Now another question also arises, has the querist stated anywhere that the apprentices of his company did not enjoy any right to employment or have no obligation to accept employment if offered, as per the spirit of the judgments?
Still further, another question arises, has the definition of the employee under section 2(f) been scrapped by any of the judgment referred by you?
Both the judgments reveal that distinction has to be made between the apprentices employed on wages with the right of employment and merely on stipend basis having no right to claim employment to fall within or outside the definition of sec. 2(f).
Moreover, any judgment has to be analised in its true spirit depending upon the facts, characteristics and the circumstances of events or nature of the case. Needless to emphsize, any court judgment is case specific only and cannot be applied universally and automatically on all types of cases unless that is allowed through the judgment of the court to be made applicable in another case by a competent court of law that too having similarity of nature, characteristics or circumstances.
SO, MERE TERM "APPRENTICE" HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING ANY CASE LAW IN ALL THE CASES OF THE INDUSTRY IN ANY WAY.
From India, Delhi
Dear Colleagues,
There has been lots of attempts /explanations in above posts made by learned colleagues but still answer is not available. Under PF Act, apprentices engaged under App Act 1961 and Trainees under Standing Orders also are exempted from coverage . However, you should have a training scheme under own certified Standing Orders. Scheme means complete things starting with Purpose, Objectives defining policy that should have well classification of Trainees, qualification, syllabus or training contents, Leave Rules, welfare, tenure, relieving ,Terms of payments and terms for completion of training. One essential thing should not be missed out that is debiting Stipend account in Books. In my one company , I was trying to defend employer on this legal footings but Accounts Section has shown all trainees remuneration in salary and wages account . So, it did not get legal and right back up and PF cover was implemented finally only due to this fault .
Regds,
RDS Yadav
Labour Law Adviser
Director-Future Instt Of Mngmnt and Technology
From India, Delhi
There has been lots of attempts /explanations in above posts made by learned colleagues but still answer is not available. Under PF Act, apprentices engaged under App Act 1961 and Trainees under Standing Orders also are exempted from coverage . However, you should have a training scheme under own certified Standing Orders. Scheme means complete things starting with Purpose, Objectives defining policy that should have well classification of Trainees, qualification, syllabus or training contents, Leave Rules, welfare, tenure, relieving ,Terms of payments and terms for completion of training. One essential thing should not be missed out that is debiting Stipend account in Books. In my one company , I was trying to defend employer on this legal footings but Accounts Section has shown all trainees remuneration in salary and wages account . So, it did not get legal and right back up and PF cover was implemented finally only due to this fault .
Regds,
RDS Yadav
Labour Law Adviser
Director-Future Instt Of Mngmnt and Technology
From India, 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.
Provident fund.zip
PROVIDENT FUND.rar
PROVIDENT FUND.doc