TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Home workers in beedi industry covered by Employees' Provident Funds Act</h1> <h3>P.M. Patel & Sons Versus Union Of India And Others</h3> The Court upheld the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme to home workers in the beedi industry, ruling that such workers are ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to home workers in the beedi industry.2. Implementation challenges of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme for home workers.3. Alleged violation of Fundamental Rights due to financial burden on the beedi industry.Summary:1. Applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to home workers in the beedi industry:The primary issue was whether home workers in the beedi industry are 'employees' u/s 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The Court held that home workers, by rolling beedis, are involved in activities connected with the work of the factory and thus fall within the definition of 'employee.' The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that the term 'in connection with' should be confined to work performed within the factory premises. The right of rejection of sub-standard beedis by the manufacturer was considered sufficient evidence of supervision and control, establishing a master-servant relationship.2. Implementation challenges of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme for home workers:The petitioners argued that the Scheme could not be applied to home workers due to the absence of a fixed retirement age. The Court clarified that the law does not require a predetermined age of superannuation for the Scheme to be applicable. The term 'retirement' was interpreted broadly to include normal cessation of service by either the employer or the worker after attaining the age of 55 years. The Court found no substantial reason why the provisions of the Act and Scheme should not apply to home workers where their terms permit such application.3. Alleged violation of Fundamental Rights due to financial burden on the beedi industry:The petitioners contended that the financial burden imposed by extending the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme to the beedi industry was excessive and violated their Fundamental Rights u/s Article 14, sub-cl. (g) of cl. (1) of Article 19, and Article 31 of the Constitution. The Court found no adequate material to support this submission and rejected the contention.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petitions and connected special leave petitions, upholding the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and Scheme to home workers in the beedi industry. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
