Implementation of Section 142 of COSS
So, it appears that Section 142 of COSS has already been implemented from the 1st of May 2021. Doesn't this imply that appeals in the form of ESI, Gratuity, etc., are to be entertained by the principal employer without using false terms such as "consultant" among others to deny them such benefits?
Challenges in Winning Cases Against Employers
Although repetitively asked on various forums, there is no strong case in which an individual who has been marked as a "consultant" in their hiring contract, by being lured into signing it with the promise of no PF and higher net take-home pay, has been seen winning the case against the employer when statutory benefits have been denied. However, Section 142 clearly states "any person," indicating even gig workers, such as driver "partners" of app-based platforms, are obliged to provide social security benefits on demand by the "any person."
So, it appears that Section 142 of COSS has already been implemented from the 1st of May 2021. Doesn't this imply that appeals in the form of ESI, Gratuity, etc., are to be entertained by the principal employer without using false terms such as "consultant" among others to deny them such benefits?
Challenges in Winning Cases Against Employers
Although repetitively asked on various forums, there is no strong case in which an individual who has been marked as a "consultant" in their hiring contract, by being lured into signing it with the promise of no PF and higher net take-home pay, has been seen winning the case against the employer when statutory benefits have been denied. However, Section 142 clearly states "any person," indicating even gig workers, such as driver "partners" of app-based platforms, are obliged to provide social security benefits on demand by the "any person."