Skip to main content

PF for casual workers

The nettlesome problem of provident fund for casual construction workers returned to the Delhi High Court with the Builders Association of India and several construction firms alleging that they should not be compelled to pay their contribution because the workers change places and could not be traced. The court had in the past asked the government to put in place a workable scheme to benefit the labourers who change employers and work place very often. Since this has not been done satisfactorily, the employers should not be compelled to contribute to the fund, they argued. The high court dismissed their petitions stating that the problem of logistics in finding the workers and paying them is different from the liability of the employers. The argument that unless the provident fund authorities and the government could show that they had a "mechanism as per which the workmen whose job was portable could avail the benefit of the money lying to their credit all over India, no liability could be fastened upon the firms has no legs to stand on."

The hon'ble court also said - " Before concluding we would note that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the liability of the employer to make a deduction from the wage payable to an employee and with a matching contribution deposit the amount with the Provident Fund Commissioner is unconnected with how the employee can receive the benefit of the fund. The issue of portability of workmen and how could a workman withdraw money lying to his credit in the fund did trouble the Division Bench of this Court because of the logistics problem which a workman could face. But that was dehors the liability of the employer to do the needful by complying with the employer’s obligation as per the amended scheme. The scheme has been upheld by the Supreme Court. "

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/iprs-acquired-get-tax-benefit-sc-115102500743_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more