EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952

Facts: The Petitioner was a wholly owned Government Corporation engaged in the activities of the public distribution system in through fair price shops. The Petitioner engaged private agents/contractors on contract basis. The Petitioner urged that the employees engaged through contractors are not employees for the purposes of EPF Act, and the petitioner is not liable for provident fund deductions.

Held: that to consider a person to be employer in relation to any establishment, that person or authority which has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment is the employer with regards to the workmen employed at that establishment. What is required to consider a person to be employer is the control over the affairs of the establishment in which or in respect of which any person is employed and not direct or indirect control over the functioning of employees by such person. Thereby, the petitioner was held to be within the ambit of Section 2 (e) of the EPF Act.

Facts: The Petitioner contended that the Thor Power Systems was a separate establishment from that of the Petitioner. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Thor Power Systems to do assembling work for the Petitioner giving overall control on all the assembling process and inspection for quality control to the Petitoner. Thereby, the petitioner was the principal employer and liable for extending the provident fund benefits to the employees engaged through Thor Power Systems as the definition of employees included contractor employees also.

Held: that Section 2 (f) covers employees even if employed by the contractor. "Employee" means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment and who gets his wages directly or indirectly and includes any person:
(i) employed by or through contractor in or in connection with the work of an establishment;
(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the Standing Order of the establishment.
Since the employees of the contractor firm are engaged in the work of the Petitioner, they would qualify as 'employees' under Section 2 (f).

Facts: The employer was a public limited company with its registered as also head office at Calcutta and branches at several places in India including one at Cuttack. A conciliation proceeding at the instance of the workman was taken up by the local conciliation officer and on furnishing of failure report, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court. The employer raised an objection before the Labour Court that the reference was not competent as itit did not have jurisdiction and, therefore, the proceeding was not maintainable.

Held: that the proper test to determine 'appropriate government' in relation to an industrial dispute is to see where the dispute substantially arose. If a workman is working in a specialised establishment, the dispute can be taken to arise only at the place where the establishment works and it does not matter where the head office of the establishment is situated or if it exercises administrative control over the employee.

Facts: The Petitioners are trade unions of Hindustan Lever Ltd (HUL). HUL was including the amount of leave encashment in the amount of employments for the purpose of calculating the employer's as well as the employees' contribution towards payment of provident fund. Later, on the letter by RPFC, HUL was informed that provident fund contribution is payable on basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance, and not on leave encashment as it is not a part of wages as defined.

Held: that the amount of contributions would be calculated on the basis of basic wages, dearness allowances and retaining allowance. The amount is payable to each of the employees, subject to satisfying the requirements that he is entitled to encashment of leave. The definition of "basic wages" includes that when an employee has gone on leave which is an earned leave, his salary or wages would fall within the term "basic wages". The Court found no ground to hold that in the event of his not availing the leave but encashing it, the amount which he gets in such encashment should be excluded from "basic wages" under Section 2 (b).