https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159077 A partner working in a firm is not an employee for EPF purposes because a partner stands in the position of an employer, and that status is not altered by participation in the business or receipt of remuneration. The deletion of the infancy period under Section 16(1)(d) did not retrospectively curtail an infancy benefit already available to an existing establishment, as accrued statutory protection is not taken away absent clear retrospective intent. On those principles, the impugned order could not stand and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the petitioners. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159077 A partner working in a firm is not an employee for EPF purposes because a partner stands in the position of an employer, and that status is not altered by participation in the business or receipt of remuneration. The deletion of the infancy period under Section 16(1)(d) did not retrospectively curtail an infancy benefit already available to an existing establishment, as accrued statutory protection is not taken away absent clear retrospective intent. On those principles, the impugned order could not stand and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the petitioners. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159077