Skip to main content

Employee can't be denied PF due to transfer to another division: Apex consumer panel

An employee covered under the employees provident fund (EPF) act will not cease to enjoy the benefit merely on being transferred to another division of a organization, the apex consumer commission has ruled.

"Once an employee is transferred to another division within the organization, his coverage under the EPF Act is not suspended," the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said.

A bench headed by Justice KS Chaudhari made the observation while upholding the orders of the Odisha state and district consumer fora which had directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) to pay the pension amount for GSN Reddy's service since 1981 with the Podagada and Kapur dam divisions till his death in 1987.

RPFC had contended that Reddy was not entitled to pension as there was a break in his membership under the EPF scheme when he was transferred from one division to another in November 1983.

The Odisha state commission had upheld a district forum's order directing the RPFC to pay the pension amount to the widow of the carpenter, GSN Reddy who had died in 1987 while in service.

Reddy's wife G Easwaramma had moved the district forum for payment of the pension amount that according to her, he was entitled to get.

The RPFC's argument was rejected by the NCDRC which said, "The contention of the petitioner (RPFC) that by transfer from one establishment to another establishment his (Reddy) membership got suspended does not have any force.

"In this case, it is a transfer from one division to another division within the same organisation, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be counted as a break."

The commission also noted that as per records submitted before it, Reddy had become a member of the fund with effect from July 31, 1983 and contribution to the provident fund was regularly made till his death in March 1987.

"It is held, therefore, that the state commission or the district forum have not committed any illegality or irregularity," the bench said.
Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-25/india/41445259_1_district-forum-pension-amount-epf-act

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more