Dear Friends,
Employment or RE-EMPLOYMENT of a retired employee in an estt, if an employer fails to cover an eligible employee, the employer will have to pay even the employee's contribution since an employer has been debarred in making recovery of member's subscription for more than one month's subs. as per provisions of para 32 of the EPFS. In this context there are two types of retired employees -
i. Those who retire from the estt. which are covered under EPFS & Act.1952 and
ii. Those who retire after working in estts. not covered under the Act.
In the former case, the retired employee having (if) settled his PF A/c. will not be eligible for PF on re-engagement. If he has not (been) settled his PF A/c. and reemployed then he is eligible to continue his PF A/c. and the estt. has to oblige him irrespective of whether or not drawing > Rs.6,500/.
Ref. case laws: 1. The Bombay Printers Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1991 LLR 443 (Bombay H.C.)
2. The Calcutta Telephones Vs.Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, 2001-II CLR 108 (Calcutta H.C.)
(Sorry to say the full text of case laws are not readily available, since quoted from the reference books)
In the present case - The question will have to be decided upon whether the re-employed employee closed his PF A/c. or not on the first day of his rejoining and whether his salary is < or > than Rs.6,500/- p.m. on his re-appointment.
The question of full time or part-time doesn't arise as the part-time employee also to be covered if they are eligible. Even persons working from home (Like Beedi workers and an Accountant who writes the a/cs of the Estt. sitting at home) also to be covered under PF.
Here a question arises whether the retired employee was given extension of service beyond 55 yrs (the age of super annuation) or re-appointed afresh with new terms & conditions after he was fully settled (as he used the term " retained").
You may decide based on the facts of the case.
Dear friends, pl.don't decide a case with an intention to deny any one any benefits which are justifiably due to him. Laws are not meant to deny anybody but to safeguard one's legal rights.Rgds,
kumar.s.