LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label provident fund act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label provident fund act. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012

interpretation of the expression "so far as may be" has in our judgment, misinterpreted the intent and scope and the purpose of the Act. =whether the employer of an establishment which is an `exempted establishment' under the Employees' Provident Funds

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APP...
Monday, September 26, 2011

whether the two companies are to be treated as two separate establishments or one establishment for the purposes of this act.=Although the first petitioner had its branches at Bombay, Amritsar, Ahmedabad and Kanpur, the number of employees in the Delhi office of this company and the second petitioner were kept below 20 to avoid coverage under the Provident Funds Act. Having considered all these facts and the submissions by both the parties, the Provident Fund Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was an integrity in the management, finance and the workforce of the two companies, and the entire business was being run by one family.=The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner was therefore, entirely justified in taking the view that on the facts and law, the two petitioners had to be clubbed together for the purposes of their coverage under the Provident Funds Act. The Appellate Tribunal clearly erred in re-appreciating the facts on record and applying wrong propositions of law thereto. The learned Single Judge was therefore required to set-aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in view of his conclusion that the order was contrary to the facts and the law, and was perverse. The Division Bench has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

›
                                                                                    REPORTABLE                      IN THE SUPREME COUR...