Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.43 seconds)The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S Central Aercanut & Coca Marketing ... on 30 January, 2006
The
Tribunal has also held that there is no iota of evidence to establish that the
apprentices were engaged in actual activities. Also there is no evidence to state
that the said apprentices are drawing remuneration and other benefits from labour
laws other than the stipend. Therefore, the Tribunal Court has come to the
conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence to prove otherwise and set aside the
order passed by the EPF organization. The Tribunal followed the judgment
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2469 of 2013
rendered in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore Vs.
Central Aercanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Cooperative Limited,
Mangalore, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 381. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that under Section 2F of the EPF Act, defines an employee to included apprentice
but at the same time, makes it exclusion to the case of apprentice engaged under
the Apprentice Act or under the employee standing orders under which it
describes a learner who is paid allowances during the period of training.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Apprentices Act, 1961
1