Friends,
Professional Couriers has appointed various franchise agents at different locations. The agent had argued that he is not covered under PF since the number of their employees was less than 20. However, the Kerala High Court held that Professional Couriers was the employer and that employees of agents were also indirectly paid by Professional Couriers, thus being covered under the PF Act.
Link to the judgment: [Kerala High Court Judgment](http://www.epfindia.com/site_docs/PDFs/Circulars/Y2016-2017/C1_Judgement_KeralaHC_12656.pdf)
Thanks
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
1446Professional Couriers has appointed various franchise agents at different locations. The agent had argued that he is not covered under PF since the number of their employees was less than 20. However, the Kerala High Court held that Professional Couriers was the employer and that employees of agents were also indirectly paid by Professional Couriers, thus being covered under the PF Act.
Link to the judgment: [Kerala High Court Judgment](http://www.epfindia.com/site_docs/PDFs/Circulars/Y2016-2017/C1_Judgement_KeralaHC_12656.pdf)
Thanks
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(1)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.
Kerala High Court Stay_ Payment of Bonus (Act) Amendment.jpg
STAY-ORDER-HIGH -COURT-OF-KERAL A-PAYMENT-OF-BO NUS-AMENDMENT-A CT-2015-1.pdf