2003 (9) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ai under the Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter called as "the said Act". The challenge is on two grounds, namely, that the partner working in the firm cannot be construed as the employee of the firm, and secondly, that the authority erred in misconstruing the amended provision regarding the infancy period in as much as though the firm of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. and Ors. v. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors., reported in 1999 II CLR 426. 3. The Apex Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries, (supra) clearly held that.-- "A partner who belongs to the class of employer cannot rank as employee because he also works for wages for the partnership, Undoubtedly the term employee is the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he infancy period is essentially for the benefit of the establishments and the establishments are entitled to continue to enjoy such infancy benefit for the period for which it was granted to them from the date of commencement of such establishment, and the amendment brought about to the statutory provision reducing the period of infancy during the subsistence of the said period of infancy in case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Before completion of the said period of three years, there was amendment to the Section 16(1)(d) of the said Act whereby the provision regarding the infancy was deleted with effect from 22-9-1997. The amended provision nowhere provides that it would have a retrospective effect so as to deny the benefit of the infancy period to the firms which were already entitled to enjoy the same in terms of th....