https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276022 The SC held that notifications extending provident fund benefits to employees engaged through contractors imposed an unreasonable and discriminatory burden on principal employers. Although the difficulties of identifying wages and continuous service were not enough by themselves to invalidate the extension, the Scheme created a more serious defect: it made the principal employer liable for the full contribution without providing a workable mechanism to recover the employee's share from contract labour wages. That unequal burden, and the resulting disparity between direct and contract labour, was not protected by Article 19(6). The impugned notifications were therefore struck down as unconstitutional. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:03:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276022 The SC held that notifications extending provident fund benefits to employees engaged through contractors imposed an unreasonable and discriminatory burden on principal employers. Although the difficulties of identifying wages and continuous service were not enough by themselves to invalidate the extension, the Scheme created a more serious defect: it made the principal employer liable for the full contribution without providing a workable mechanism to recover the employee's share from contract labour wages. That unequal burden, and the resulting disparity between direct and contract labour, was not protected by Article 19(6). The impugned notifications were therefore struck down as unconstitutional. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276022