Pf act
Karan Gaur
(Querist) 21 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
An employee is paid Rs. 700 on daily basis for 12-13 days every month thereby monthly Rs. 13*700=9100/-.
Contention of the employee is that PF is not deductible and employee falls withing a category of excluded employee. (700*30 days = 21000 per month).
Now I want to know whether PF is to be deducted or not. Is the answer remains same if this continues for the whole year....
Employer wants to escape his liability of PF and designed a mechanism to escape his liability...
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 21 May 2015
If the employer-employee relation exist then calculation shall be based on amounts paid monthly.
Karan Gaur
(Querist) 22 May 2015
@ Mr. Rajendra K Goyal
Sir I am a lawyer and such type of problem are faced in our day to day business....
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 22 May 2015
PF is payable as per query in the post.
Labor Law/Service matters is altogether different field of law and establishment may avail the services of an able Labor Law Consultant/Law Firm.............
The HR may have an awareness upto an extent however HR personnel should also preferably refer to Labor Law Consultant/Law Firm.............contracted by the establishment.
Rest is upto the establishment.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2015
Mr. Karan,
Being a lawyer, I hope, you would have gone through the PF Act. You could better have discussed about your own doubt with cogent reason with particular reference to the specific section of the Act.
In fact, your query looks like just an academic query put by a teacher to his students or asked by a law student, who wants to answer, stating, "Now I want to know whether PF is to be deducted or not. Is the answer remains same if this continues for the whole year....".
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 23 May 2015
Academic query to enrich the knowledge. Come with specific problem.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 24 May 2015
This is not such a complicated issue that a mention cannot be found in the concerned law book, the author being a lawyer could have put his efforts to find the answer from his library by glancing the pf rules and act.
Karan Gaur
(Querist) 26 May 2015
Thanks to Mr. KUMAR DOAB...
But I dont unerstand Mr. Dhingra, Mr. Malipeddi Jaggaroa, Mr. T. Kalaiselvan Advocate....Instead replying they texed too much...In those much of words my query could have been answered....I am not an intelligent lawyer.. I accept that...that is why I asked the query...and please suggest which type of queries to be put before the learned experts...If you people find the query too elementary then you could answer the query...instead dictating something else...I dont understand what kind of people you are....If Mr. Kumar Daob answered the query...had he done a mistake in doing this...
Guest
(Expert) 26 May 2015
Mr. Karan Gaur,
Thanks for your sentiments, "I dont unerstand Mr. Dhingra, Mr. Malipeddi Jaggaroa, Mr. T. Kalaiselvan Advocate....Instead replying they texed too much...In those much of words my query could have been answered." As you threatened me on phone and directed me not to reply your queries in future, I think, you would have sent threatening call to Mr. Malipeddi and T Kalaiselvan also.
By the way, what wrong I have stated except expecting you to discuss like a lawyer with your fellow members expressing your own views to get your doubt removed, instead of posting a query like a layman, a student or a teacher to his students? If you think you are not an intelligent lawyer, as per your own statement, "I am not an intelligent lawyer," my advise should have been taken in right spirit by you to become an intelligent advocate by discussing the matter in a proper way, as an advocate. But, it you want to remain as you are, I don't mind your preferred position in advocates family.
If you are really a lawyer, even if not an intelligent lawyer, it is a matter of common sense that any employer does not employ his employees merely for 13 days of each month on regular basis and keep them unemployed for the rest of 17 days of every month.
So, your query is nothing, except a totally baseless and hypothetical academic query.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 26 May 2015
A querist threatening a Senior Expert of the Forum!
A lawyer threatening a senior legal consultant!
Take back your Thanks!
Don't expect any response in future.
Karan Gaur
(Querist) 27 May 2015
For Mr. Dhingra...
Sir...my query is not baseless...now I am texting the whole story...
(1) There is a contractor (2) Total employee strength is 100 (3) Employer is covered under PF Act (4) Now contractor gets an another contract (5) Contractor has to hire 20 more employees for a salary of 12000 per month (6) Contractor wants to escape his PF liability as being an employer he has to deposit 12% of wages out of his OWN pocket (7) Now the contractor designs a mechanism to escape PF liability makes the employees as EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES viz... (i)Employee will work for the whole month (ii) Employee will fill his daily wages sheet for 20 days (iii) Total wages for 20 days will be 20*600 = 12000 thus employee gets his agreed monthly salary Rs. 12000
(8) Contractor wants to contend before PF authorities that his employees are EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES as they are getting 600 per day and this turns to be Rs. 18000 per month (600*30=18000)whereas employees getting salary/wages up to Rs. 15000 per month are eligible for PF and are covered employees.
My only query was...WHETHER contractor's contention is TENABLE OR NOT.
I hope that now my query is understandable. Still if it is not clear then please ask to the point what information has been left to understand the query...
Guest
(Expert) 27 May 2015
Mr. Karan Gaur,
Thanks for your desription. But would you like that your present sescription is entirely different than your description in your original query?
In your original query, you mentioned, "An employee is paid Rs. 700 on daily basis for 12-13 days every month thereby monthly Rs. 13*700=9100/-. Contention of the employee is that PF is not deductible and employee falls withing a category of excluded employee. (700*30 days = 21000 per month)."
Contrary to that your present description states, "(i)Employee will work for the whole month (ii) Employee will fill his daily wages sheet for 20 days (iii) Total wages for 20 days will be 20*600 = 12000 thus employee gets his agreed monthly salary Rs. 12000; (8) Contractor wants to contend before PF authorities that his employees are EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES as they are getting 600 per day and this turns to be Rs. 18000 per month 600*30=18000)whereas employees getting salary/wages up to Rs. 15000 per month are eligible for PF and are covered employees."
CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY ABOUT THIS MAJOR SHIFT FROM THE ORIGINAL QUERY?
Now the question arises, in what way you are concerned with the contractor, employees or the PF authority, as your description does not indicate, whether you are asking question for and on behalf of the contractor, employees, or EPFO?
Secondly, you have not mentioned, what is the role of the principal employer in this case?
Thirdly, in what context this issue betwen the contractor - EPFO cropped up?
Fourthly, you have still not given your own view points/ analysis of the problem, as a lawyer with respect to the provisions of the act.
SO, STILL YOUR QUESTION IS OF THE STATUS OF AN ACADEMIC QUESTION, AS IF SOME PRACTICAL PROBLEM IS REQUIRED TO BE SOLVED.
Karan Gaur
(Querist) 27 May 2015
@ Mr. Dhingra
Sir mujhe answer mil gaya....
Guest
(Expert) 27 May 2015
Good, if answer mil gaya!
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 27 May 2015
There are many well mannered querists that thank the self less service of experts in this forum.
The recent one is at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Can-nominee-make-nomiinee-538666.asp#.VWW1R1J-hkg
The only answer to your query is the one that has already been posted.
Consult a Labor Law Consultant worth his salt and one that would give correct advice.
There is no mechanism to escape statutory dues e.g. PF,ESIC etc.
Don't bring bad name to advocacy by rendering wrong advice.
Karan Gaur
(Querist) 28 May 2015
Rahne do Kumar sahab...bahut salah mashvira ho gayi ab....ye thik nahi hai...
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 May 2015
Good if you have understood.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 May 2015
This is for any other reader of this thread.
Even if any advocate of any establishment calculates in the manner as cited by querist in this thread the PF liability stands.
Imp. point is::: evasion is punishable.
The RPFC/APFC/PF Inspector in the nearest PF office would be too happy to find.
