THE Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Calcutta high court and held that in a case of default of provident fund contribution by an “exempted establishment”, it would be liable for legal action. The question involved in the case, Regional PF Fund Commissioner vs Hooghly Mills, was under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act whether exempted companies can be subjected to proceedings for recovery of damages if they default in the contributions. The high court ruled that such exempted employers could not be proceeded against. According to the Act, establishments which have better schemes for provident fund than the statutory one, may be exempted. The high court, by interpreting Section 17, concluded that the company was exempted. Overruling the high court, the Supreme Court stated that since it is a social welfare law, courts should interpret provisions, if there is any doubt, in favour of the beneficiaries. “The interpretation of the Act must not only be liberal but it must be informed by the values of Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution.”
From India, Malappuram

Attached Files (Download Requires Membership)
File Type: pdf SC on exempted establishments 18.1.2012.pdf (185.7 KB, 653 views)

Get a holistic view of Project Management that would cover modern tools & techniques →
Promoted: XLRI - Executive Development Program in Project Management for Senior Professionals (Explore Course)
Thanks a lot. It is very very useful information. No big words to express our happiness on sharing such worth information. Keep doing it. With personal regards, Sundararaman
From India, Madras

Thanx a lot Mr. Agrawal for bringing out the very recent judgement of the Supreme Court as regards exempted establishment. With this judgement it becomes very clear that the the exempted establishment is also to be treated like an unexempted establishment for assessing contributions remitted by the employer to the private trust as well as in recovery proceedings by the Regional PF Commissioner. So the exempted establishment is in no better position.
Regards KK

From India, Bhopal
Dear Agrawal ji,
Thanks for valuable information with this judgement it becomes very clear that the the exempted establishment is also to be treated like an unexempted establishment.


From India, Kakinada

If you are knowledgeable about any fact, resource or experience related to this topic - please add your views using the reply box below. For articles and copyrighted material please only cite the original source link. Each contribution will make this page a resource useful for everyone.

Please Login To Add Reply →

About Us Advertise Contact Us Testimonials
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 CiteHR.Com™

All Material Copyright And Trademarks Posted Held By Respective Owners.
Panel Selection For Threads Are Automated - Members Notified Via CiteMailer Server