Dear Mr. Sasikumar,
The meaning of "workmen" is spelt out in section 2(s) of ID Act, 1947 and not 29s) as you have mentioned in your reply. Hope it might be a typographical error from your part.
Anyhow, the meaning is still debatable and hence, in a way, everyone other than the Managing Director Or CEO of a company, falls under the "workmen" category only because of the reason that no body is actually vested with the decision making power in an organisation, which is an essential ingredient "to be out of a workmen category" as per clause (iv) of sub-section (s) of section 2 of ID Act, 1947.
Since it is a debatable issue, S. Arthy still can go ahead with the notice u/s 9A if wish to.
P. Vathiraj
+91 9585 333 344
From India
51The meaning of "workmen" is spelt out in section 2(s) of ID Act, 1947 and not 29s) as you have mentioned in your reply. Hope it might be a typographical error from your part.
Anyhow, the meaning is still debatable and hence, in a way, everyone other than the Managing Director Or CEO of a company, falls under the "workmen" category only because of the reason that no body is actually vested with the decision making power in an organisation, which is an essential ingredient "to be out of a workmen category" as per clause (iv) of sub-section (s) of section 2 of ID Act, 1947.
Since it is a debatable issue, S. Arthy still can go ahead with the notice u/s 9A if wish to.
P. Vathiraj
+91 9585 333 344
From India
Yes It is typogarphical mistake. Thanks for pointing out.My clarification is only with reference to situations where Sec.9-A is applicable i.e -workmen.The definition of workman is clear in that it excludes even those exercising supervision over the work of a subordinate/s reporting to him and drawing a salary exceeding Rs.10000/- p.m though they do not discharge other mangerial functions like sanctioning leave or taking disciplinary action etc.However as a prudent administrative practice and by way of abundant caustion, it is better to take consent from every emlployee or issue notice.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law advisor
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law advisor
From India, Mumbai
Dear Keshav Ji & Saikumar Ji,
What happens when some of the employees does not give their consent to the employer ( to limit employer PF contribution to Rs.6500). How does the employer go a head in such a scenario?
Secondly when there is a notification by Company 21 days before changing policy on PF contribution. It is deemed that all employee have accepted the notification?
Regards,
Suresh
From India, Bangalore
What happens when some of the employees does not give their consent to the employer ( to limit employer PF contribution to Rs.6500). How does the employer go a head in such a scenario?
Secondly when there is a notification by Company 21 days before changing policy on PF contribution. It is deemed that all employee have accepted the notification?
Regards,
Suresh
From India, Bangalore
Dear All,
Please find a judgment of Supreme Court in case in Marathwada Gramin Bank Karmachari Sanghatana Vs Management of Maratwada Gramin Bank (SC 2011 LLR 1130), for your reference.
The judgment which I had posted earlier in this thread in the matter of The North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Association & Another Vs.Reserve Bank of India & Others is of Kerala HC.
Now we have a judgment of Supreme Court.
From India, Mumbai
Please find a judgment of Supreme Court in case in Marathwada Gramin Bank Karmachari Sanghatana Vs Management of Maratwada Gramin Bank (SC 2011 LLR 1130), for your reference.
The judgment which I had posted earlier in this thread in the matter of The North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Association & Another Vs.Reserve Bank of India & Others is of Kerala HC.
Now we have a judgment of Supreme Court.
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
PF Contribution on Leave Encashment - Clarification by EPFO.pdf