• While exercising jurisdiction under section 7 A of the Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner has the same powers which are vested in a civil court in trying a suit.
Food Corporation of India v. The Provident Fund Commissioner, (1990) 1 sec 68: 1999 SCC (L&S) 1: (1990) 60 FLR 15: (1990) 1 CLR 20: 1990 LLR 64 (SC).

• If in the absence of service of notice upon the employer, an order under section 7 A is passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it will be liable to set aside.
K.C. Mehra v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1990 LLR 399 (Del HC).

• An employer cannot reduce wages of the employees for the purpose of payment of contributions under the Act.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore v. Harihar Poly fibers, 1991-II LLN 948: 1992-11 LLJ761 (Karn HC).

• If an exempted establishment violates the provisions of the Act, it will be liable for penalty. Mere withdrawal of exemption will not amount to penalty.
N.K. Jain v. C.K. Shah, (1991) 2 SCC 495: 1999 sec (L&S) 656: 1991 LLR 349: 1991(62) FLR 657: 1991-11 LLN 443 (SC).

• Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 - Para 76(b) - Complaint by appellant under trial court convicted the respondent - Acquittal in appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Whether the order of acquittal is sustainable - Difference between the sections 14(1) and 14(2) para 76(b) of the scheme - Explained. Held that the judgment of the appellate court is redundant and the order of the trial court is restored.
Provident Fund Inspector, Batala v. New Janta Bus Service Company Ltd., Batala, 1992 LLR 293 (P&H HC).

• When E.P.F. & M.P. Act applied to school, the school - Contributed only 6.25% of total pay whereas earlier it was contributing 8.33% - Whether this reduction of rate would amount to reduction in the quantum of total benefits which were being paid to petitioners? No.
R.K. Mahto v. Union of India, (1992) II LL) 244, 1992 LLR 335,1992 (64) FLR 115 8 (Del HC).

• 'Whether section 5 of the Act which authorizes the Central Government to frame the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, is ultra vires, the Act or not and also violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India? Held No.
Cotton Corporation v. Union of India, (1993) 1 LLN 311: (1993) 1 LL) 1015, 1993 LLR 404, 1993-1 CLR 983, 1993 LIC 21: 1993(83) FJR 389 (Raj HC).

• Workers and Cinema Theatres Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 - Liability of employer to pay contribution - Applicability of the scheme of the petitioner with retrospective effect before issue of the Notification - Whether proper? No. The Provident Fund Commissioner shall determine the liability of the amount afresh.
Goverdhanlal Purohit v. R.P.F. Commissioner, 1993 LLR 575 (Raj HC).

• Word 'Vest' occurring in section 10(2) - Meaning of - Nomination of brother by the employee - Whether nominee gets absolute title to the Provident Fund lying to the credit of the deceased - Held, it does not clothe the nominee with the absolute title or benefit of the exclusion of heirs of the deceased.
Nozer Gustad Commissariat v. Central Bank of India, (1993) II LL) 98, 1993 LLR 757, 1993(67) FLR 1056 (Bom HC).

• Non-allotment of Code Number will not be a valid ground for not depositing EPF contribution.
Poysha Industrial Company Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 70 FLR 154, 1995 LLR 316, 1995­ILL) 137 (Cal HC).

• Consumer Protection Act will extend out the service provided by EPF & MP Act.
1.              Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 1996 LLR 641 (N.C. Redressal).
2.              Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, 2008 LLR 661 (SC).

• After amendment to section 7B of the Act w.e.f 1-7-1997, the appropriate authority under the Act can review its order.
Yugasresha Sovaniya Shikhyashrama v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (84) 1997 CLT 504 (Ori HC).

• If appellant has provided separate provident fund scheme which is more beneficial than what was provided under the Act, then appropriate course for appellant is to seek exemption from operation of the Act under section 17 of the Act.
Canbank Financial Services Ltd., Bangalore v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in Karnataka, Bangalore, (1997) 3 Kant L) 361, (1998) 1 LL) 92, 1997 CLR 11 734 (Kar HC).  

• Merely because the petitioner even bona fidely was contesting that the provisions of the Act were not applicable, it would not absolve the petitioner from liability to deposit the contribution under the Act created for the welfare of employees.
Gram Sewa Samiti, Raipur and Regional Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Indore, (1997) 76 FLR 573: (1997) 4 LLN 747: 1997-11 LLJ 1202 (MP HC).

• Unless appropriate Government has issued Notification amending exempted scheme, revised condition that amendment in statutory Scheme more beneficial to the employee existing rules, would become applicable automatically, did not apply to already exempted establishment.
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Dev Kumar Holani, (199S) 6 SCC 35: AIR 1998 SC 24S0: (199S) 3 LLN 928: 1998 11 LLJ 612: 1998 LLR 775: 1998 (SO) FLR 57 (SC).

• In case of transfer of an establishment, transferee becomes liable to pay E.P.F. contributions and other sums from the date of transfer.
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. R.P,F. Commissioner, Madras, 1998 II LLJ 977 (Mad HC).

• An employer cannot withhold provident fund for rent dues recoverable from an employee.
Motilal Sharma v. University of Rajasthan, (1998) 1 WLC 440: 1998 11 LLJ 1021 (Raj HC).

•Failure to consider explanation of the employer in recovering arrears of PF's contribution will vitiate the proceedings.
Auchtel Products Ltd, v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1998 LLR 377: 1998 (78) FLR 900 (Bom HC).

• Nomination by employee for Family Pension Scheme will be deemed valid for Employees' Pension Scheme also.
Rukminibai A. Khamkar v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1998 LLR 1065 (Karn HC).

• Summoning of contractor by PF Commissioner will be necessary to determine the status of employees.
N.T.P. Corporation Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1998 LLR 1084: 1998 (SO) FLR 218 (Cat HC).

• The Provident Fund Authorities should invoke their powers as vested in a Court under Civil procedure for determining liability.
N.T.P. Corporation Ltd, v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1998 LLR 1084: 1998 (SO) FLR 218 (Cal HC).

• While determining as to one unit is a branch of another, financial intergrality and employment will be decisive criterion.
Varanasi Fan Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Rewa v, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur, 1998 LIC 3H2: (1998) 3 LLN 449: (1998) II LLJ1244: 1999 LLR SO: 1999 (S3) FLR 20 (MP HC).

• Recovery of EPF contributions will have priority over other debts.
Allahabad Bank v. S.K. Bhattacharya, (1999) 3 LLN 140: 1999 LLR 686: 1999(82) FLR 517 (Cal HC).

• Provident Funds amount of an employee cannot be attached under any decree order in respect of debt.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Puttamma, 1999 LLR 316: 1999-1 CLR 820 (Karn HC).

• Default in depositing EPF contributions is continuing offence hence not barred by limitation.
K.M. Shivarama v. K.C. Purushothama, 1999 LLR 1207 (Karn HC).

• Adjustment of any amount is not permissible against the provident fund of an employee.
Punjab & Sind Bank v. Ashok K Aggarwal, 1999 LLR 939, 1999 (83) FLR 370 (Del HC).

• Prosecution of proprietor under provident fund on the basis of carbon copy of Form 5A will not be sustainable.
KM. Shivarama v. KC. Purushothama, 1999 LLR 1207 (Karn HC).

• Remedy under section 7 A of EPF & MP Act is not a bar in filing of writ petition.
Motor Industries Company Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2001) 88 FLR 316: (2000) II LLJ 1066, 2000 LLR 1309 (Karn HC).

• An employee who has opted for voluntary retirement scheme by receiving his gratuity can opt for pension scheme by returning the amount of gratuity as received by him.
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association (Rep. by Secretary) v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department, 2001 LLR (Sum) 1070 (AP HC).

• Exemption from pension scheme can be granted only to establishments and not to any employee or group of employees.
H.M.T. Ex-servicemen's Association v. Union of India, (2001) 2 CLR 529, (2001) 89 FLR 1089: (2001) 99 FJR 244: 2001 LLR 697.

• Writ petition will not be maintainable in stalling the payment of contributions of Provident Fund more particularly when an appropriate forum exists under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Essorpe Mills Ltd. v. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, (2001) 98 FJR 449: (2001) II LLJ 24: 2001 LLR (Sum) 524 (Mad HC).

• Recovery of Provident Fund Contributions through appointment of receiver and resorting to attachment of assets without fair and minimum opportunity will be illegal and liable to be set aside.
P. Guru Vittal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement and Recovery) Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 2001 LLR 520 (Mad HC).

• Layoff compensation will attract EPF contributions.
Joseph v. Official Liquidator, (2001) 3 LIN 1098: (2001) 2 KLT 920: 2002 FjR 197: (2001) III CLR 411: 2001 LLR 1143 (Ker HC).

• Advance against Provident Fund has to be disbursed without delay and demur.
Gopinathan v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2002 LLR 504: 2002 LIC 63 NOC (Ker HC).

• An employee cannot be deprived of pension benefit for intervening period between termination and the reinstatement.
Raghunath v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2002) III CLR 457: 2002 LLR 574: 2002 LIC 2501: 2002 (94) FLR 421 2002 (3) LLJ 154 (MP HC).

• Non-deposit of EPF contributions after deduction will amount to criminal breach of trust.
Aniruddha Kumar Dhole v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 94 FLR 44, 2002 LLR 914 (Bom HC).

• Recovery of arrears of provident funds can be made from the Managing Partner /Director who was in the control of the affairs of the Firm/ Company.
Mohan Lal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana, 2002 LLR 1208: 2002 LIC 2602: 2002 (IV) LLN 326: 2002 (III) LLJ 779: 2002 (III) CLR 360 (P&H HC).

• The EPF & MP Act empowers the Recovery Officer to adopt any mode as prescribed for recovery of dues from the employer.
Mohan Lal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana, 2002 LLR 1208: 2002 LIC 2602: 2002 (IV) LLN 326: 2002 (III) LLJ 779: 2002 (III) CLR 360 (P&H HC).

• A member of Employees' Provident Funds having not exercised his option for Employees, Family Pension Scheme 1971 in terms of its para 4 read with Form I cannot claim that he had automatically become member of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.
Ugra Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, (2002) 3 BLJR 2323: (2003) 1 LLJ974: 2003 LLR 527 (Pat HC).

• A quasi-judicial authority like Provident Funds Commissioner should act reasonably, fairly and should not act with undue haste and arbitrariness. When a request had been made well in advance for adjournment of proceedings by assigning reasons, the Commissioner should have, in fairness, accommodated the petitioner by granting a short adjournment hence the order passed ex parte being an arbitrary exercise of power which was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot sustain.
Camtex Mills v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2003 LLR 553 (Mad HC).

• A partnership firm and manager are also covered within the definition of 'employer' under the EPF & MP Act and acquittal of a manager for default in depositing the EPF contributions because the firm is not a separate legal entity will be set aside hence the High Court convicted both e.g. firm and the manager of the firm along with the Managing Partner.
K Pandurangan, Provident Fund Inspector/Enforcement Officer, Vellore 111, Dvision Office of the Enforcement Officer, Vellore v. Abdul Shukoor and Company, Tannery Vaniyambadi (represented by A. Imtiaz Ahmed, Partner), 2003 LLR 618: 2003 (II) LLN 27 (Mad HC).

• The Provident FW1d Commissioner committed a fundamental mistake in applying rule 12(7) to the petitioners and limiting their claim from the dates on which applications were submitted by them taking those dates as the dates of option for retirement from service and for pension.
Kunjavara v. Provident Fund Commissioner, (2004) IV LLJ Supp (NOC) 8: 2003 LLR 1048 (Ker HC).

• The employees of newspaper industry have always been treated as a class apart and as such not treating them as 'excluded employees' under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Scheme by a notification issued in 1956, will not be unconstitutional.    .
Express Publications (Madurai)  Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) II LLJ 356: 2004 LLR 479 (SN) (SC).

• The Commissioner under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act while determining money due from an employer, in exercise of its powers under section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act, can go into the question as to whether the wages being paid to the employees have been splitted under various heads like basic wages, house rent allowance and other allowance has been with an ulterior motive as a subterfuge to avoid EPF contributions by the employer towards provident fund.
Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2004) 105 FJR 505: (2004) 102 FLR 374: 2004 LIC 2075: (2004) II LLJ 1142: 2004 LLR (June Issue) (Karn HC).

• The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a social welfare legislation to provide for the employees' pension fund etc. hence this Court will not monitor implementation of such policy unless the same is discriminatory or arbitrary. Since the Employees' Pension Scheme is for the welfare of employees, the same cannot be held to be violative of the Constitution.
Otis Elevator Employees' Union S. Reg. v. Union of India, (2003) 12 SCC 68: AIR 2004 SC 3264: (2004) 1 LLN 450: (2004) 1 SCR 435: 2004 LLR 63: 2003 (99) FLR 1179 (SC).

• The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a social welfare legislation hence while interpreting its provisions where a section is capable of two constructions, the one which is more beneficial to the employees, the Courts should give preference to that section.
Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. Tuticorin v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai, (2004) 1 LLJ 663: 2004 LLR 135 (Mad HC).

• Provident fund, gratuity, pensionary benefits, leave salary or other retiral benefits are immuned from attachment under any decree of the civil court even when such dues are payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee since provisions of section 60(9) of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for such exceptions from attachment of the dues as accruing to the legal heirs after the death of the employee.
Sathiyabama v. M, Patanisamy, (2004) II LLJ 403: 2004 LLR 270: 2004 (100) FLR 656 (Mad HC).

• When the employees were not denied of any existing benefits but the contributions were being made by the employer in violation of the provisions of the Scheme and as such the rectification in reducing the rate of contribution will not be violative of section 12 of EPF & MP Act providing that the employer cannot reduce the wages.
N. Vijayan, Instructor, Milrna Training Centre, Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Secretary to Government, Agriculture (Dairy) Department, 2004 LLR 240: 2004 (100) FLR 450 (Ker HC).

• The proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 29 of the Provident Fund Scheme providing that the employee can contribute more than the prescribed limit, but by such payment of contributions by the employer can be restricted up to the prescribed limit.
N. Vijayan, Instructor, Milma Training Centre, Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v, Secretary to Government, Agriculture (Dairy) Department, 2004 LLR 240: 2004 (100). FLR 450 (Ker HC),

• The appropriate Authority under section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act is vested with the powers of the Civil Court in summoning the witnesses also compelling their attendants.
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, (2004) 101 FLR 1224: 2004 LIC 2890: (2004) III LLJ 435: 2004 LLR 718 (Guj HC).

• Pending appeal, issuing warrant for arrest of the office bearers of the Trust will not be justified when 40% of amount has been deposited.
Jivraj Mehta Smarak Trust Sanchalit v. Provident Fund Commissioner, (2004) 4 LLN 298: (2004) 102 FLR 828: (2004) LIC 2923: 2004 LLR 895 (Guj HC ).

• Power of attorney holder by the owner will be restricted to pay Provident Fund contribution only for the period from which it came into effect till the date of the owner's death.
K.T. Sajeev v. Provident Fund Commissioner, 2004 LLR 921 (Ker HC). 

• Failure on the part of the Commissioner of Enquiry under Employees' Provident Fund to implead the contractors will not be justified.
Ganesh Roy v. State of Jharkhand, 2004 LLR 1092 (Jhar HC).

• Determination and recovery of provident fund contributions from the principal employer on the basis of balance sheets only will not be tenable.
Proto Pumps & Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F.O., Sural, 2004 LLR 1145 (Guj HC).

• The employer is personally liable for paying the PF arrears only in the event of the properties of the establishment being insufficient.
D.lC Venkatesh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2004 LIC 3606: (2004) 103 FLR 161: (2004) 107 FJR 259: (2004) III LLJ 952: 2004 LLR 1148 (AP HC).

• After determining the amount under section 7 A of EPF & MP Act, the officer has to give opportunity to the employer to pay the arrears.
D.R. Venkatesh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2004 LIC 3606: (2004) 103 FLR 161: (2004) 107 FJR 259: (2004) III LLJ 952: 2004 LLR 1148 (AP HC).

• A member of Family Pension Scheme becoming a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme will be entitled to retirement benefit equal to aggregate of pension and for past service.
K Chennakesavalu v. Employees' Provident Fund Organization, (2004) 102 FLR 919: (2004) 107 FJR 39: (2004) III CLR 376: 2005 LLR 56 (Karn HC).

• An employee, having withdrawn the entire amount from the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, cannot be permitted to switch over to the pension scheme.
Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2005 LLR 349 (All HC).

• For redressal of grievances, an employer can file the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the EPF & MP Act instead of writ petition in the High Court.
Convent of Jesus and Mary v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun, 2005 LLR 517 (Uttr HC).

• Determination of money by fixing the liability of the employer under section 7 A by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner will not be justified when his order about fixing the liability was passed before expiry of the lime given to the employer for production of material.
Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2005 (I) LLJ 1049 (Guj HC).

• Direction to deposit upto 75 per cent of the demanded amount towards provident fund dues, On an appeal against levy of damages, will not be justified.
Old Village Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organization, 2005 LLR 552 (Del He)

• A review of the order of section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act has to be filed within 45 days and in the prescribed Form.
Anurag Board & Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Kadula, Muzaffarnagar v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut, 2005 LLR 561 (All HC)

• An employee, being member of the Employees' Pension Scheme will get full pension benefits when became paralytic and permanently disabled.
5udhakar Pani v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), 2005 LLR 846 (Karn HC)

• Provident Funds Act provides procedure for exemption of an establishment and not for its cancellation.
Delta Ltd. v. Regional Provident fund Commissioner II, West Bengal, Sikkim and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2005 LLR 788 (Cal HC)

• While interpreting the provisions of welfare legislation like the Employees' Pension Scheme, the beneficial interpretation has to be given.
Sudhakar Pani v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), 2005 LLR 846 (Karn HC)

• Total disablement will be presumed for entitlement of pension under Employees' Pension Scheme even though the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 90%.
Sudhakar Pani v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), EPF Organization, Karnataka, Regional Office, Bangalore, 2005 LLR 955 (Karn HC).

• A review petition within the prescribed period, against the order of the Provident Fund Commissioner, is to be decided on merits.
Sinero Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Panaji  Goa, 2005 LLR 919 (Bom HC).

• A welfare legislation, like Employees' Pension Scheme, is to be liberally interpreted so that its benefits go to the weaker section.
Sudhakar Pani v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), EPF Organization, Karnataka, Regional Office, Bangalore, 2005 LLR 955 (Karn HC).

• Employees' provident fund dues, as payable by the defaulting employer, will be treated as first charge on the assets of an establishment.
Union Bank of India v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer, 2005 LIC 2624, 2005 LLR 1018 (Karn HC).

• Freezing bank account of the employer by Provident Fund authority for recovery of contribution, without opportunity, will be set aside.
Protection Manufacturers (Pvt.) Ltd. v, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2005 LLR 1132 (Ori HC).

• A school, covered under the Provident Funds Act, will not be liable for payment of contributions of the employees such as drivers, conductors as engaged by the transport contractor for providing transportation.
Springdales School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 47 (Del HC).

• An employer, purchasing an industrial unit from the State Financial Corporation, will not be liable to pay the arrears of provident fund.
M.J. Foods Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 182 (Ori HC).

• Limitation for filing an appeal before the Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, the date of service of the order will be relevant.
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 361 (Ker HC).

• Dispatch of appeal through registered post on the 60'" day of service of the decision will be within limitation.
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 361 (Ker HC).

• Even when an appeal has been filed before the EPF Appellate Tribunal against levy of damages, the employer will have to deposit 75% of the amount.
Talaguppa Plywood Products (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, 2006 LLR 477 (Karn HC ).

• Determination of EPF contribution payable by the contractor(s) will not be justified when they have not been impleaded.
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Exemp), Chennai, 2006 LLR 507 (Mad HC).

• Rejection of plea of principal employer to implead the contractors to determine provident funds contributions will not be valid.
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Exemp), Chennai, 2006 LLR 507 (Mad HC)

• Detention of an employer in civil prison for non-production of old record, as directed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7 A of the Act will not be justified.
Vinod Tiwari v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, 2006 LLR 632 (MP HC)

• initiating recovery of dues under section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act will not be tenable when no reasons have been recorded by the Authority.
Gurbir Kaur v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, 2006 LLR 651 (Cal HC)

• Detention of a person in civil prison by Provident Fund Authority will be in gross violation of fundamental right of personal liberty.
Vinod Tiwari v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, 2006 LLR 632 (MP HC)

• During pendency of an appeal, Provident Fund Authorities cannot insist for recovery of dues.
Hindustan Casting & Engineering Company v. Union of India, 2006 LLR 720 (Cal HC)

• Provident Funds contributions of one company cannot be fastened to another even by lifting corporate veil.
Universal Pollution Control (1) P. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2006) 3 Mah LJ 831: 2006 LLR 774 (Bom HC)

• No recovery can be made from other establishment, if defaulting company has its own Code Number under the Provident Fund Act.
Universal Pollution Control (1) P. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2006) 3 Mah LJ 831: 2006 LLR 774 (Bom HC)

• Even when employer has agreed to deposit its provident fund contribution in excess of the salary limit, he not shall have choice to pay below statutory ceiling.
Vijayan v, Secretary to Government, 2006 LLR 935 (Ker HC)

• On review application by an employer, recovery of provident fund dues from Employees' Provident Funds Authorities will remain stayed.
Abnsah Lal Harish Kumar through its Parther Harish Banga, Udham Singh Nagar v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2006 LLR 987 (Uttr HC)

• Issuing of arrest warrant against an employer by Provident Funds Authority would not be arbitrary when employer failed to produce record despite repeated opportunities.
Devi Ahilya 8ai Ghatge Uccha Shiksha Samiti v, State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006 LLR 1120 (SN) (MP HC)

• Coverage of an establishment and demanding Provident Funds contributions without opportunity will not be tenable.
Kesarwani and Company v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Varanasi, 2006 LLR 1231 (All HC).

• Coverage of employee under Provident Funds from the day of joining will not be illegal.
Kay Iron Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 LLR 175 (Bom HC).

• Government is empowered by section 7(1) of Provident Funds Act to modify 1952 Scheme.
Kay Iron Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 LLR 175 (Bom HC).

• The proceedings under section 7 A of the Provident Funds Act and under section 45A of the ESI Act are different from each other.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tricky v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Rep. by its Regional Director, Chennai, 2007 LLR (SN) 319 (Mad HC).

• Arrest of a former Director for default of provident fund dues without ascertaining his means is liable to be quashed.
Jagdish Roy v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, 2007 LLR (SN) 330 (Cal HC).

• Tribunal has rightly directed that for determination of provident funds dues against an employer, the Contractors were to be summoned.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta v. Assam Biri Factories (Pvt.) Ltd., 2007 LLR (SN) 331 (Cal HC).

• Non-bailable warrant by the Provident Funds Authorities against the defaulting employer would not be arbitrary or illegal.
Devi Ahilya Bai Ghatge Uccha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 LLR (SN) 328 (MP HC).

• Provident fund of an employee, being retirement benefit, cannot be attached.
Pulugu Karnakar Reddy v. Shreya Financers and Hire Purchase, 2007 LLR 560 (SN) (AP HC).

• Non-allotment of Code number to employer will not justify late remittance of provident funds contributions.
Elegant Garments (represented by its Managing Partner), NungambakKam, Chennai v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry, Chennai., 2007 LLR 666 (SN) (Mad HC).

• Only three days delay in filing appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has to be condoned.
Yeshwant Sahkari Kamgar Bank Ltd.  v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Solapur, 2007 LLR 858 (Bom HC).

• Show-cause notice by the Provident Fund Authorities threatening with arrest, without stating any ground, is to be quashed.
Carona Ltd.  v.   Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2007 LLR 921 (Bom HC).

• It is incumbent upon the PF Authorities to determine as to who is the employer instead of fastening liability upon the school.
Delhi Public School, Ghaziabad   v. Enforcement Officer, U.P. (Employees') Provident Fund, Ghaziabad, 2007 LLR 1082 (All HC).

• Object of Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme is to benefit employees.
Mukund Construction Company  v. Regional P.F. Commissioner, 2007 LLR 1064 (Guj HC).

• For challenging recovery of provident funds dues, jurisdiction of civil courts is barred.
Employees' Provident Fund Organization v. Hotel Broadway, 2008 LLR 150 (Gau HC).

• Provident fund deduction from the wages not to be beyond one year as per section 9(1) read with IVth Schedule to the Income Tax Act.
Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. & Five Others  v. The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner (ENF) Employees' Provident Funds Organization, Trichirapalli, 2007 LLR 1254 (Mad HC).

• Provident fund dues cannot be recovered from a Director who did not have any financial or managerial control over the company.
Srimohan Tayal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 LLR 417 (Del HC).

• Recovery proceedings for provident fund not to be stayed because of pendency before SICA but the criminal trial under breach of trust will remain stayed.
Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd.  v. State of West Bengal, 2008 LLR 214 (SN)  (Cal HC).

• While computing the interest on delayed payment of provident funds contributions, the Authority must give a reasonable opportunity to the employer.
Indian Record Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour New Delhi, 2008 LLR 447 (Cal HC).

• Word 'may' has significance for redl1cing damages for delayed deposit of ESI contributions.
Vijai Cold Storage & Katha Industries, Najibabad v. E.5.I. Corporation, Kanpur, 2007 LLR; 1268 (All HC).

• Provident Funds Act once applicable will continue even when the number fails prescribed limit.
Kottahala Handloom Weavers Industrial Coop. Society v. Enforcement Officer, 2008 LLR 744 (Ker HC).

• Provident Funds Authorities have to decide preliminary objections at first instance in proceedings under section 7 A of the Act.
M/s. Neo Corp International v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 LLR 886 (MP HC).

• Provident Fund dues can also be recovered from the Director in his personal capacity.
Atulya Yogendra Mafatlal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 LLR 829 (Guj HC).

• A Notification under Provident Funds Act extending coverage to ali Banks other than Nationalized Banks is to be quashed.
Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, Chennai rep. by its Chief Manager (Pers.) v. Government of India rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Delhi, New Delhi, 2008 LLR 891 (SN) (Mad HC).

• When there is long delay in determination of provident fund contributions, these are to be only for the employees who are identifiable.
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 LLR 980 (SC).

• Provident fund contributions, when not determined for 14 years, the employer to produce only record which is statutorily maintainable and also available.
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 LLR 980 (SC).

• Employees' Insurance Court erred in not quashing of recovery when. no inspection report was supplied by ESIC.
D.C.M. Shriram Consolidated Ltd, v, Employees' Insurance Court, Delhi, 2008 LLR 1018 (Del HC).

• On transfer of the establishment, both the transferor and the transferee are jointly liable for provident fund contributions.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri v. Eveready Industries (India), Ltd" 2009 LLR 194 (Cal HC).
P F Act

P F Act

  • EPFO Launched new Grievance Management Portal

  • Enhancement of the cash benefit on Pension:

  • Enhanced the cash benefit payable to the family of EPF subscribers on their death in service from present maximum of rs.60,000 to rs.1.00 lakh. Published in the gazette of india, part ii, section 3, subsection (i), vide number g.s.r. 523(e), dated the 18th june, 2010
  • Download Notification

  • EPF(Amendment) Scheme, 2011

    New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

    G.S.R. 25(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5, read with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme, further to amend the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. namely

    1. (1) This Scheme may be called the Employees’ Provident Funds (Amendment) Scheme, 2011.

       (2) It shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2011

    2. In the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme), in paragraph 60, after sub-paragraph (5), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—

    “(6) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a member from the date on which it has become Inoperative Account, under the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 72”

    3. In the said Scheme, in paragraph 72, in sub-paragraph (6):—

       (a) for the words “but no claim has been preferred” the words “but no application for withdrawal under paragraphs 69 or 70 or transfer, as the case may be has been preferred ” shall he substituted:

       (b) for the words “three years”, at both the places where they occur, the words “thirty six months” shall be substituted.

        [F. No. S-35012/01/2010-SS-1I]
    S. K.. DEV  VERMAN, Jt. Secy.

    For more details :
    The PF old balance will stop earning interest. After three years of inactivity.
  • Download Notification
  • ESIC

    Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2010.

    Following are the some salient feature of the ESI (Amendment) Act, 2010.
    Extension Of The ESI Scheme To The Construction Site WorkerS :

  • The Construction site workers who were kept out of coverage of ESI act till date, Now covered with the implementation of it roll out "any time, anywhere". esic services will be available to these mobile and migratory workers with no geographical barrier.


  • Benefits under the scheme have also been extended to apprentices and trainees employed under Apprentice Act and Standing Order Act.


  • The appropriate Government is empowered to extend the provisions of ESIC Act 1948 to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise after giving one month’s notice of its intention of doing so by notification in Official Gazette instead of notice period of six months.


  • Definition of “dependents” as contained in clause 6A of section 2 of the Act has been extended to enlarge the number of beneficiaries under the act such as:
  • A widow, a legitimate or adopted son below the age of 25 years and an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter. The age limit of the dependants has been enhanced from 18 to 25.

  • Dependent parents as per definition of “family” has been substituted so as to include;

  • “A minor brother or sister wholly dependent upon the earnings of the insured person in case the insured person is unmarried and his or her parents are not alive”. It has been also clarified that dependent parents to include “Dependent parents, whose income from all sources does not exceed such income as prescribed by the Central Government”.


  • The definition of Factory under Section 2(12) has been amended to expand coverage of smaller factories. The amended Act covers all factories, which employ 10 or more persons irrespective of the fact whether the manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of the power or without the aid of the power.


  • The designation of Inspector has been re-designated as “Social Security Officer” to enroll them as facilitator of the Scheme rather than to act as mere inspectors.


  • Medical benefits to the insured person and his spouse have been extended under circumstances where insured person retires under Voluntary Retirement Scheme or takes premature retirement. In the earlier Act the benefit was applicable only on attaining the age of superannuation. Proviso to sub section 3 of section 56 has been substituted to provide the same.


  • Accident occurring to an insured person while commuting from his residence to the place of employment and vice-a-versa shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment for the purpose of benefit under the Act. A new section 51-E has been added for this purpose.


  • A new Chapter V-A has been added to enable provision for extending medical care to non insured persons against payment of user-charges to facilitate providing medical care to the below poverty line (BPL) families and other un-organized sector workers covered under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY).

  • Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments from the operation of this Act will be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act.

  • Section 91 A of the Act is amended to removing. retrospective grant of exemption from the provision of the Act
  • Download ESI (Amendment) Act 2010


  • ESIC Launched New Online Portal for Submitting Application and Returns


  • ESI WAGE CEILING ENHANCED FROM Rs. 10000 TO Rs. 15000 w.e.f 01-05-2010
  • Download ESI Wage Ceiling Notification
  • Minimum Wages


  • Zone I:All Municipal Corporations
  • Zone II : All Municipalities
  • Zone III : Rest of the area

  • Highly Skilled :
  • (Security Supervisor/ Officer/ Field Officer)

    Z-I: 7500, Z-II: 6500,Z-III: 5000

  • Skilled :
  • (Security Inspector/ ASO/ Intelligance and Fire Fighting Personal, Head Gaurd)

    Z-I: 7000, Z-II: 6000, Z-III: 4500

  • Semi-Skilled :
  • (Asst. Security Inspector /Security Gaurds with Arms)

    Z-I: 6500, Z-II: 5500, Z-III: 4250

  • Un-Skilled :
    (Security Gaurds without Arms)

  • Z-I: 5000, Z-II: 4250, Z-III: 4000


    Andhra Pradesh contract labour minimum wages are revised w.e.f 18 aug'09 as:
  • Un-Skilled: Rs. 155 per day, Rs. 4030 per month

  • Semi-Skilled: Rs. 195 per day, Rs. 5070 per month

  • Skilled: Rs. 235 per day, Rs. 6110 per month
  • I D Act 2010

  • Enhancement of wage ceiling of a workman from Rs. 1600/- pm to Rs. 10000/- pm under section 2(s) of the Act

  • Direct access for the workman to the Labour Court or Tribunal in case of disputes arising out of section 2A of the Act

  • Expanding the scope of qualifications of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts or Tribunals under sections 7 and 7A of the Act
  • Establishment of Grievance Redressal Machinery in every Industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances

  • Empowering the Labour Court or Tribunal to execute the awards, orders or settlements arrived at by Labour Court or Tribunal
  • Link to ID Act (Amnd) Act, 2010
  • HR Info.in

    Hr Info.in

    Workmen's compensation Act, 2010

    Given below are the synopsis of the changes.

  • THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 is now renamed as THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 and wherever "workman" or "workmen" is mentioned in the entire Act the same needs to be read as "Employee" to make it gender sensitive.

  • The compensation payable on death from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.80000 is increased to Rs.120000 or (ii) 50% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.

  • The compensation payable on Permanent Total Disablement from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.90000 is increased to Rs.140000 or (ii) 60% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.

  • actual reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of injury caused during course of employment.

  • Empower the Central Government to specify monthly wages for the purpose of compensation. It is 50% of Rs.8000/-. This amendment is notified vide Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) vide Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 31st May 2010.

  • Definition of workmen replaced by "Definition of Employee"- also now includes CLERICAL employees.

  • The Commissioner shall dispose compensation cases within a time period of 3 months.
  • Download Emploee's Compensation (Amnd) Act, 2010
  • Download Emploee's Compensation Wage Limit Notification