Dear All
Please guide me in this issue. I want to know whether PF is deducted from stipend of the trainee?
In our organisation people from Accounts are arguing with me on same, according to them PF should be deducted of every new joining employee even if he is getting a stipend under training period.
Regards
Archana
From India, Mumbai
Please guide me in this issue. I want to know whether PF is deducted from stipend of the trainee?
In our organisation people from Accounts are arguing with me on same, according to them PF should be deducted of every new joining employee even if he is getting a stipend under training period.
Regards
Archana
From India, Mumbai
No, although i am not very sure with amendments in rules. But PF is not deductable from stipend of trainee, it is applicable to salaried employees. R sandhu
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Hi Archana, PF is deducted for everyone employed including trainees. The only exception are apprentices - PF is not deducted from the stipend as per the Apprentice Act. Regards, Anuradha
From India, Pune
5From India, Pune
Hai, As per the judgement given by supreme court 'Trainee’is not an employee therefore PF may not be deducted. smile, smitha
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Smitha,
Only for apprentice under Aprrentice Act, there is an exemption under PF Act.
As for Trainees it is upto the Company to deduct PF. If trainees are treated at par with employees under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company or Company Rules PF should be deducted on the otherhand if they are not treated as employee then PF need not be deducted.
I personally feel PF should be deducted from the Employee angle because it is a good socila security measure.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Only for apprentice under Aprrentice Act, there is an exemption under PF Act.
As for Trainees it is upto the Company to deduct PF. If trainees are treated at par with employees under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company or Company Rules PF should be deducted on the otherhand if they are not treated as employee then PF need not be deducted.
I personally feel PF should be deducted from the Employee angle because it is a good socila security measure.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Hi
We are currently deducting only ESI and Prof Tax from trainees and not PF.How would one differentaite between trainees and apprentice.Both of them get paid by stipend.
Can anyone give a more detailed clarity on this please.
Cheers
Khushnum
From India, Bangalore
We are currently deducting only ESI and Prof Tax from trainees and not PF.How would one differentaite between trainees and apprentice.Both of them get paid by stipend.
Can anyone give a more detailed clarity on this please.
Cheers
Khushnum
From India, Bangalore
Hi Swastik,
I have a doubt now after reading your response. THere are two types of trainees: Trainees who come for intern training during the semesters (say a period of 2-3 months) and the other type is freshers who join the organization for a permanent vacancy in the organization (taken as trainees by virtue of no experience, given on the job training and then absorbed in the organization after successful completion of training period)
Both are paid stipend, but as far as the industry standard goes, we do not cut PF or esic for them. It is only for the permanent trainee (oxymoron!)position, we deduct PF and ESIC.
Is it the right way? can you throw some light on this...
Regards,
Anuradha
From India, Pune
I have a doubt now after reading your response. THere are two types of trainees: Trainees who come for intern training during the semesters (say a period of 2-3 months) and the other type is freshers who join the organization for a permanent vacancy in the organization (taken as trainees by virtue of no experience, given on the job training and then absorbed in the organization after successful completion of training period)
Both are paid stipend, but as far as the industry standard goes, we do not cut PF or esic for them. It is only for the permanent trainee (oxymoron!)position, we deduct PF and ESIC.
Is it the right way? can you throw some light on this...
Regards,
Anuradha
From India, Pune
Dear Anuradha,
Look the intern or summer trainee are actually student who is under the ultimate control(authority) under the Education Institute they are in. The Relationship between the Student and Education Institute is not of a Employer and Employee, and this status remain during the training period.
Again it is not compulsory( I mean under any law) to pay them stipend, if a Company wants they can and if the Company do not they wont.
So, the two major crieteria (control and salary payment)to qualify for employer employee relationship does not exist in this case.and hence no statutory formalities need be followed.
Reagrds,
SC
Dear Archana,
What Cite do you want??
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Look the intern or summer trainee are actually student who is under the ultimate control(authority) under the Education Institute they are in. The Relationship between the Student and Education Institute is not of a Employer and Employee, and this status remain during the training period.
Again it is not compulsory( I mean under any law) to pay them stipend, if a Company wants they can and if the Company do not they wont.
So, the two major crieteria (control and salary payment)to qualify for employer employee relationship does not exist in this case.and hence no statutory formalities need be followed.
Reagrds,
SC
Dear Archana,
What Cite do you want??
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Hi,
The discussion seems to be getting opinions oriented.
The Supreme Court of India on January 30, 2006 decided the issue conclusively.
The citation of the case is, Regional Provident Commussioner, Mangalore v Central Arecanut & Coca marketing & Processing Co-op Ltd. Mangalore (2006 I CLR 861)
One must read the entire judgement to appreciate the matter. The gist of the matter is that "the Trainees appointed under the standing orders applicable to the establishment are not covered by the definition of the term "employee" u/s 2(f) of the EPF act." This section makes a specific inclusion of Apprentice but clearly excludes an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders ofthe establishment.
Being a judgement ofthe highest court we can safely follow the same within the parameters laid out by the judgement.
With this explanation I suppose the confusion, conflicting view points, facts and opinions will merge and clarity on the issue will remain.
As food for thought would someone care to examine the definition of "employee" under the ESI act and comment on the same so that another useful thread will start?
I trust all interested parties are now satisfied. Any labour lawyer in your area will make a copy of the decision easily available to you please. Read the same to digest the full import of the matter!
Cheers and Regards
samvedan
September 22, 2006
From India, Pune
The discussion seems to be getting opinions oriented.
The Supreme Court of India on January 30, 2006 decided the issue conclusively.
The citation of the case is, Regional Provident Commussioner, Mangalore v Central Arecanut & Coca marketing & Processing Co-op Ltd. Mangalore (2006 I CLR 861)
One must read the entire judgement to appreciate the matter. The gist of the matter is that "the Trainees appointed under the standing orders applicable to the establishment are not covered by the definition of the term "employee" u/s 2(f) of the EPF act." This section makes a specific inclusion of Apprentice but clearly excludes an Apprentice under the Apprentices Act or under the Standing Orders ofthe establishment.
Being a judgement ofthe highest court we can safely follow the same within the parameters laid out by the judgement.
With this explanation I suppose the confusion, conflicting view points, facts and opinions will merge and clarity on the issue will remain.
As food for thought would someone care to examine the definition of "employee" under the ESI act and comment on the same so that another useful thread will start?
I trust all interested parties are now satisfied. Any labour lawyer in your area will make a copy of the decision easily available to you please. Read the same to digest the full import of the matter!
Cheers and Regards
samvedan
September 22, 2006
From India, Pune
hi!
if the person concerned is an apprentice then pf cannot be deducted.(as per The Apprentcieship Act, 1959)
Sec 37.—A person who carries on a designated trade in an apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade shall not take into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district any person—
( a ) other than a person who is registered in the register of candidates kept, under section 43 of this Act, by the apprenticeship committee for the trade and the district, and
( b ) save with the consent of such committee.
Sec 50.—For the purpose of facilitating employment by way of apprenticeship in a designated trade, an apprenticeship committee for the trade—
( a ) may arrange for the taking of a particular person into employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district of the committee by a particular employer, or
( b ) where a person employed by way of apprenticeship in the trade desires to be transferred from one employer to another in the district of the committee or from an employer in the district of the committee to an employer in another apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade, may arrange for the carrying out of the transfer, or
( c ) where it considers it desirable that a person employed by way of apprenticeship in the trade should be transferred from one employer to another in the district of the committee or from an employer in the district of the committee to an employer in another apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade, may arrange for the carrying out of the transfer.
sec 37.—A person who carries on a designated trade in an apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade shall not take into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district any person—
( a ) other than a person who is registered in the register of candidates kept, under section 43 of this Act, by the apprenticeship committee for the trade and the district, and
( b ) save with the consent of such committee.
if the person concerned is a trainee then definitely yes.
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
if the person concerned is an apprentice then pf cannot be deducted.(as per The Apprentcieship Act, 1959)
Sec 37.—A person who carries on a designated trade in an apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade shall not take into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district any person—
( a ) other than a person who is registered in the register of candidates kept, under section 43 of this Act, by the apprenticeship committee for the trade and the district, and
( b ) save with the consent of such committee.
Sec 50.—For the purpose of facilitating employment by way of apprenticeship in a designated trade, an apprenticeship committee for the trade—
( a ) may arrange for the taking of a particular person into employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district of the committee by a particular employer, or
( b ) where a person employed by way of apprenticeship in the trade desires to be transferred from one employer to another in the district of the committee or from an employer in the district of the committee to an employer in another apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade, may arrange for the carrying out of the transfer, or
( c ) where it considers it desirable that a person employed by way of apprenticeship in the trade should be transferred from one employer to another in the district of the committee or from an employer in the district of the committee to an employer in another apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade, may arrange for the carrying out of the transfer.
sec 37.—A person who carries on a designated trade in an apprenticeship district for the purposes of the trade shall not take into his employment by way of apprenticeship in the trade and in the district any person—
( a ) other than a person who is registered in the register of candidates kept, under section 43 of this Act, by the apprenticeship committee for the trade and the district, and
( b ) save with the consent of such committee.
if the person concerned is a trainee then definitely yes.
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
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