Respected Senior,
One of my friend's relatives has been working in an organization since 1992. However, they have only been enrolled in EPF since 2006. Previously, the employees were not enrolled under EPF. Now, the employer is indicating the Date of PF joining as the Date of Joining, which is directly linked to Gratuity and results in a payment 14 years less of Gratuity. According to the law, Gratuity Payment should be calculated from the actual date of joining.
I kindly request your advice on this matter. Please share any supporting documents relevant to this.
Regards, Umesh
From India, Adilabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1One of my friend's relatives has been working in an organization since 1992. However, they have only been enrolled in EPF since 2006. Previously, the employees were not enrolled under EPF. Now, the employer is indicating the Date of PF joining as the Date of Joining, which is directly linked to Gratuity and results in a payment 14 years less of Gratuity. According to the law, Gratuity Payment should be calculated from the actual date of joining.
I kindly request your advice on this matter. Please share any supporting documents relevant to this.
Regards, Umesh
From India, Adilabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
General Practice of Employers Regarding Temporary and Contract Labor
This is the practice adopted generally by most employers who hire temporary, casual labor, or contract labor based on the amount of work, aiming to evade their legal liabilities under both the EPF Act, 1952, and the PG Act, 1972 to some extent due to a lack of documentary evidence. Sometimes, when subsequent enrollment in the EPF Scheme occurs because of trade unions' or enforcement authorities' initiatives, employers seek refuge in the unavailability of past records, leading to the adoption of the enrollment date into EPF as the employees' joining date.
Differences Between PF and Gratuity Schemes
Although both the PF and gratuity schemes are twin terminal benefits of employment, their applicability and operations differ in terms of the conditions specified in the respective enactments. It is plausible that enrollment in EPF might be a later event due to the subsequent application of the EPF Act, 1952 to an establishment that was already covered under the PG Act, 1972.
Employee's Responsibility in Proving Employment Duration
In such a delicate situation, it falls on the employee to demonstrate that they had worked for at least 240 days each year in the same establishment before their EPF enrollment date through documentary evidence.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
This is the practice adopted generally by most employers who hire temporary, casual labor, or contract labor based on the amount of work, aiming to evade their legal liabilities under both the EPF Act, 1952, and the PG Act, 1972 to some extent due to a lack of documentary evidence. Sometimes, when subsequent enrollment in the EPF Scheme occurs because of trade unions' or enforcement authorities' initiatives, employers seek refuge in the unavailability of past records, leading to the adoption of the enrollment date into EPF as the employees' joining date.
Differences Between PF and Gratuity Schemes
Although both the PF and gratuity schemes are twin terminal benefits of employment, their applicability and operations differ in terms of the conditions specified in the respective enactments. It is plausible that enrollment in EPF might be a later event due to the subsequent application of the EPF Act, 1952 to an establishment that was already covered under the PG Act, 1972.
Employee's Responsibility in Proving Employment Duration
In such a delicate situation, it falls on the employee to demonstrate that they had worked for at least 240 days each year in the same establishment before their EPF enrollment date through documentary evidence.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Dear Umesh,
In this case, the employee should represent his case appropriately with evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship with this current employer since 1992, as mentioned by you.
Shailesh Parikh
99 98 97 10 65
Vadodara
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
In this case, the employee should represent his case appropriately with evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship with this current employer since 1992, as mentioned by you.
Shailesh Parikh
99 98 97 10 65
Vadodara
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Dear Umesh, Every legal remedy is based on sufficient and proper evidence only. It is always imperative for the claimant or workman to prove their actual length of service under a particular employer by means of some documentary evidence. If they don't have any such evidence, they can request the records pertaining to casual labor or contract labor engaged during that particular period from the employer. However, the period should be within a reasonable span of time, as no employer can be expected to keep and preserve records indefinitely. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the Judicial Authority has no alternative other than to dispose of the claim with the available documentary evidence only.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Contract Labor - PPT.ppt
EPF,ESIC & GRATUITY .xls
Gratuity to contract labour.docx