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

....nt Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai 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 perio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tter of Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd. 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 be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. and Ors. v. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (supra) has clearly held that the 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the said Act, as was in force at the time when the firm of the petitioners was established. 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 ....