Dear Samvedan,
You are absolutely right. But I was talking about situations. Like I have known Companies which have given names of Labour Welfare Officers and Safety Officers in Annual Return of Factories, who are trainees and they have been carryingon duties of LWOs or Safety Officers.
Here we should follow the spirit not letter of law. If you are talking about Trainees, many of them are given responsibilities and independent duties which you cannot give to a Trainee. Even while fulfilling statutory requirement Trainees have been shown as a part. While filling up of vacancies Company has used Trainees, making them work on 1/10th Cost and getting full time benefits. So, in field of Operation as Trainee Asst. Manager (Marketing) becomes Asst. Manager (Marketing) but while giving coverage under PF the same person is treated as Trainee.
Yes, for working class all these laws can be applied because there are proper laws and regulations, but when it comes to Management Cadre and Trainees there are no laws, neither are they covered under Standing Orders in majority of cases and most Companies ask them to work as a Manager should and while giving benefits does what suits the Company best.
I personally feel that I am not stating my opinion but giving the practical situations. And, one more thing if a Company cover their Trainees under PF is it illegal??.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
45You are absolutely right. But I was talking about situations. Like I have known Companies which have given names of Labour Welfare Officers and Safety Officers in Annual Return of Factories, who are trainees and they have been carryingon duties of LWOs or Safety Officers.
Here we should follow the spirit not letter of law. If you are talking about Trainees, many of them are given responsibilities and independent duties which you cannot give to a Trainee. Even while fulfilling statutory requirement Trainees have been shown as a part. While filling up of vacancies Company has used Trainees, making them work on 1/10th Cost and getting full time benefits. So, in field of Operation as Trainee Asst. Manager (Marketing) becomes Asst. Manager (Marketing) but while giving coverage under PF the same person is treated as Trainee.
Yes, for working class all these laws can be applied because there are proper laws and regulations, but when it comes to Management Cadre and Trainees there are no laws, neither are they covered under Standing Orders in majority of cases and most Companies ask them to work as a Manager should and while giving benefits does what suits the Company best.
I personally feel that I am not stating my opinion but giving the practical situations. And, one more thing if a Company cover their Trainees under PF is it illegal??.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Hi!
As per PF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act'1952, Every Employee , including the one through a contractor (but excluding an apprentice under the Apprentice Act ) who is in receipt of wages up to Rs.6500/-.
Satish
From Germany
As per PF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act'1952, Every Employee , including the one through a contractor (but excluding an apprentice under the Apprentice Act ) who is in receipt of wages up to Rs.6500/-.
Satish
From Germany
Hi,
The law is a funny animal.
The definition of "employee" under states, ......ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act 1960 or under the standing orders of the establishment.
This means that there yet another category category of "apprentices" not clearly defined anywhere thet could get covered as "employee" for the purposes of the Act.
Be that as it may, I only pointed a case law from which one may draw support or learn a lesson.
Swaatik I appreciate each point raised by you. We are NOT the custodians of the morality or committment towards legal compliance of any employer. We must appreciate that the law prescribes only the minimum and does NOT prevent the employer to do better than the legal stipulations. One just cannot contract out of law and that is an uncompromising feature of the law of the land!
As to other observations in this thread, it is clear that this law does NOT recognize any levels of employment. As ofnow it only says that if an employee is paid salary/wage less that Rs. 6500/- p.m (as Basic+DA) then he has to be conered under the act even if he is employed just for a day! This limit of of the EPF and in course of time your salary/wage crosses the coverage limit at that point of time then you continue to be a member of PF but the contributions would be restricted to the ceiling of the coverage limit.
If you join a new employment at a salary/wage in excess of Rs. 6500/- p.m. (Basic+DA) then you are an "exempted employee" and the new employer may or may nto cover you in PF depending upon the policies of that organization but even if he does cover you, your contributions will continue to be restricted to the ceiling limit.
This is how the PF operates. Again there are employers that continue to cover employees irrespective of salary/wage being in excess of the coverage limit and contribute on actual Basic+DA
You get all sorts. The cases mentioned by Swastik are interesting and one would like to know more details before one could comment! If culprits escape law, they don't become decent folks, they can at best carry on a pretence of decency and everone is innocent till proven guilty is what Indian jurisprudence is based on. A very noble value often misapplied at all levels!!!
I suppose I should stop here (at least for the time being!!)
Regards
samvedan
September 22, 2006
From India, Pune
The law is a funny animal.
The definition of "employee" under states, ......ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act 1960 or under the standing orders of the establishment.
This means that there yet another category category of "apprentices" not clearly defined anywhere thet could get covered as "employee" for the purposes of the Act.
Be that as it may, I only pointed a case law from which one may draw support or learn a lesson.
Swaatik I appreciate each point raised by you. We are NOT the custodians of the morality or committment towards legal compliance of any employer. We must appreciate that the law prescribes only the minimum and does NOT prevent the employer to do better than the legal stipulations. One just cannot contract out of law and that is an uncompromising feature of the law of the land!
As to other observations in this thread, it is clear that this law does NOT recognize any levels of employment. As ofnow it only says that if an employee is paid salary/wage less that Rs. 6500/- p.m (as Basic+DA) then he has to be conered under the act even if he is employed just for a day! This limit of of the EPF and in course of time your salary/wage crosses the coverage limit at that point of time then you continue to be a member of PF but the contributions would be restricted to the ceiling of the coverage limit.
If you join a new employment at a salary/wage in excess of Rs. 6500/- p.m. (Basic+DA) then you are an "exempted employee" and the new employer may or may nto cover you in PF depending upon the policies of that organization but even if he does cover you, your contributions will continue to be restricted to the ceiling limit.
This is how the PF operates. Again there are employers that continue to cover employees irrespective of salary/wage being in excess of the coverage limit and contribute on actual Basic+DA
You get all sorts. The cases mentioned by Swastik are interesting and one would like to know more details before one could comment! If culprits escape law, they don't become decent folks, they can at best carry on a pretence of decency and everone is innocent till proven guilty is what Indian jurisprudence is based on. A very noble value often misapplied at all levels!!!
I suppose I should stop here (at least for the time being!!)
Regards
samvedan
September 22, 2006
From India, Pune
Hi
As per sec 2 (f) of the PF act " Employee" means any person who is employed for waes in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an extablishment, and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person :-
i. employed by or through a contractor in or inconnection with the work of the establishment:
ii engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961) , or under the standing orders of the establishement:
It not applicable only to the Apprentices as per the App. Act.
All others are covered..
Regards
Mahesh D.S.
From India, Madras
As per sec 2 (f) of the PF act " Employee" means any person who is employed for waes in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an extablishment, and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person :-
i. employed by or through a contractor in or inconnection with the work of the establishment:
ii engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961) , or under the standing orders of the establishement:
It not applicable only to the Apprentices as per the App. Act.
All others are covered..
Regards
Mahesh D.S.
From India, Madras
Hi, Why do you ignorw the last sentence of the Sec 2(f) (ii) of the definition of an "employee" and the Supreme Court decision I just cited in this thread only? Regards samvedan September 22, 2006
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
yes, PF has to be deducted from stipend of Trainee. Since as per PF act stipend comes under definition of wages and trainee as a employee.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
You have to deduct provident fund of Every employee who join the company on your regular muster roll except persons appoint under the Apprentice ship Act and getting stipend during apprentice ship
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear all,
Have a look at this link and suggest SID some measures to check duplicacy of topics so that the search criteria are restricted.
<link no longer exists - removed>
Dear senior members,
Try to remember prior discussions and rather than discussing the same topic again and again in different posts, it shall be beneficial if only one post is continued for vast expeirences.
:idea:
Have a look at this link and suggest SID some measures to check duplicacy of topics so that the search criteria are restricted.
<link no longer exists - removed>
Dear senior members,
Try to remember prior discussions and rather than discussing the same topic again and again in different posts, it shall be beneficial if only one post is continued for vast expeirences.
:idea:
Dear All,
Anuradha is correct- while deciding PF deduction we have to see PF act for defination of employee & eligibility criteria.
Only Apprentices are excluded from PF.
Avinash Desai
Manager HR
FUJIFILM SERICOL INDIA PVT LTD
PUNE
From India, Mumbai
Anuradha is correct- while deciding PF deduction we have to see PF act for defination of employee & eligibility criteria.
Only Apprentices are excluded from PF.
Avinash Desai
Manager HR
FUJIFILM SERICOL INDIA PVT LTD
PUNE
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.
PF is to be deducted on canteen allowance - Delhi HC 22.7.2013.pdf