Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State Co-Op. Supply And ... on 25 July, 2006

Mmtc Limited vs Employees Provident Fund Organization on 3 October, 2012

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the test is whether the workers are employed directly or indirectly and even if they are employed indirectly whether they would fall within the definition of employees under Section 2(f) of the EPF & MP Act. Reliance is placed on Section 8A of the Act which provides for the manner of recovery of money by the employers and contractors. Reliance is also placed on Paras 30, 36 and 36B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. Referring to Orient Paper Mills, Shahdol Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur & Anr. 2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 209; Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Punjab State Co-op. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. 2007 LAB I.C. 75; Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 2000 L.S.(Raj) 192 and M/s. Goel Textile Industries & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1991 (62) FLR 436 it is contended that since this is a beneficial legislation, an interpretation which does not defeat the object of the legislation has to be resorted. Applying the test laid down it would be seen that the employees were in their dual capacity, one as members of the society and second as workmen/ employees of the society and thus, they are entitled to the beneficial legislation.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Vishkarma Indergarh Coop Labour & ... vs Regional Employees Provident Fund ... on 18 November, 2016

5.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court vide Annexure P-7 to contend that Section 7-A proceedings is required in holding of an inquiry. Section 7-A proceedings would be invoked by the EPF Department only if there are disputed facts relating to number of persons working or non-availability of records or non-remittance of PF amount, if any. Therefore, the judgment dated 7.12.2009 vide Annexure P-7 is not relevant. The respondent counsel relied on a decision of this Court passed in Ram Singh and others Vs. Punjab State Co-op Supply & Mkg. Federation Ltd. and others decided on 25.7.2006 (para 9 and 10), in support of PF deduction.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Punjab Pradesh Palledar Mazdoor Union vs Punjab Agro Industries Corporation And ... on 2 March, 2009

In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund C.W.P.No.2718 of 2009 -2- Organization, Sub Regional Office, Goniana Road, Bathinda, to look into the representation dated 30.6.2007 (Annexure P-2) and take necessary appropriate steps in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P.No.16879 of 2004 in Ram Singh's case (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Ajit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 July, 2013

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not required to have any EPF Code in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.16879 of 2004 titled as Ram Singh and others v. Punjab State Co-op. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, decided on 25.7.2006. He, thus, submits that this writ petition may be treated as a representation qua this issue for future policies in view of the judgment referred to above and the annexed to the petition as Annexure P-6.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukhtar Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 9 September, 2013

The controversy qua these two tenders has arisen on account of the fact that the tender floating authority introduced a clause requiring the contractor to have registered himself with the EPF authorities and, thus, having a code number. Learned counsels for the respondents do not dispute that in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Singh and others Vs Punjab State CWP-9726-2013 (O&M) 2 CWP-9744-2013 (O&M) Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited and others, 2007 LLJ 631, the liability towards EPF may not be permissible to be shifted by the principal employer being such entities. It is, however, stated that since the contractors often keep changing the persons deployed; the details available only with the contractors and that is the reason the requirement was put that they are registered with the EPF authorities having a code number.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1