• Two units will be treated different and distinct for the applicability of Employees' Provident Funds Act when there is no inter-connection between them.
B, Gannpathy Bhandarkar vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore
• Petitioner engaged in manufacturing of eatables and selling them at the counter
After getting these articles manufactured from such needy women coming Lo the petitioner - Who get themselves registered as an associate members of payment of Rs. 2 as subscription fee - Such members are paid on daily rate or piece rate basis
• Not entitled to attend meeting of the mandal or to vote or contest election of the mandal - Liable to be terminated by the office-bearers - Held, status of such associate members was that of an employee and, therefore, the provisions of the Act rightly applied to the establishment - Petition dismissed.
Shree Kutchi Visha Oshwal Mahila Mandal vs. Union of India
• Regional Provident Fund Commissioner holding that petitioner - Company was employing more than 20 employees and was, therefore, covered by the provisions of the Act. The decision of the Regional Provident Commissioner cannot be challenged in the High Court. Petition dismissed.
Skalini Damdar NiKarn vs. India
• Petitioner owned two factories one in Kerala and another in Tamil Nadu - Regd. Office and activities carried on by both have been the same - Balance sheet, income and expenditure account common for both - Transfer of cash from Tamil Nadu to head office and vice-versa - Same Managing Director, Finance Manager and Secretary empowered to operate bank aCCOlmt of both - But have separate licenses - Whether factory in Tamil Nadu is an establishment of the factory in Kerala? Yes.
Eddy Current Contracts(India
• Establishment having different department or branches at different places Whether all such branches constitute part of the same establishment for purpose of applicability of the Act? Yes - Determinative tests also laid down.
Eddy Current Controls (India
• Three schools, Nursery, Primary and High School, established by and functioning under the same Management are to be treated one for the purposes of applicability of the Act.
• When the establishment as covered under the Act is closed down on 7-9-1988 and the last employee left 21-4-1989, the provisions of the Act would cease to apply to the establishment after 21-4-1989. Also in the absence of employees and no wages being paid, the provision under the Act will be applicable.
Purex Laboratories v. The Regional Provident Commissioner, (1998) 1 CLR 295: 1997 LLR 13: (1998) 1 LLJ 780: ILR 1997 Kar 13.
• For applicability of EPF & MP Act an establishment its profit or no profit motive is immaterial.
Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh represented by its Secretary, R. Gnanasigamani Ponniah v. Union of India (represented by Secretary, Ministry of Labour), New Delhi, 1999 LLR 551: 1999-II LLN 224 (Mad HC).
• Employees' Provident Funds Act will apply to an establishment from the date of its commencement and not from the date when the electric power connection was given to new manufacturing unit.
Gem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1999) 4 LLN 1068: 1999 LLR 360: 1999 (82) FLR 414 (Kar HC).
• Merely the printed papers showing Head Office Kota of a school located in district Ajmer
• Consultants providing experts services will be counted for applicability of Employees' Provident Funds Act.
Gain Financial Consultants (Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay
• Coverage of a hospital under the Employees' Provident Fund, wherein more than 20 employees were found working on physical verification, cannot be faulted with since it is immaterial whether the employees kept on changing or that they were employed to tide over any temporary emergency of excess work hence' the High Court will not interfere with the orders of the Authorities under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
• An employer, employing 19 persons besides 3 trainees, will be liable to be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 notwithstanding that no contributions will be payable for the trainees who were engaged prior to 1988 when the trainees were covered under the Act by virtue of amendment to section 2(f) of the Act.
Dr. Navnilal K. Shah v. Union of India
• Coverage of an advocates firm by the Employees' Provident Funds Act under the head of 'attorneys' will not be justified since the Advocates Act has deleted the 'attorneys',
Acme Company v. Union of India
• Extending of Employees' Provident Funds on non-nationalized banking companies will be arbitrary.
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore v. Union of India
• Coverage of an amusement park under the Provident Funds Act without ascertaining the 'head' will not be legal.
Polo Amusement Park Ltd. v. EPF Applt. Tribunal, 2008 LLR 411 (Del HC).
• Growing flowers with advanced technology will attract Provident Funds coverage.
Vasavi Florex, Kolur Village
• Employees' Provident Funds Scheme comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, 2008 LLR 661 (SC).
• Provident Fund Act will be applicable upon the 'expert services'.
Panther Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Kanpur
• Provident Fund Act would be applicable to a welfare society also.
