आपकी राय !

2019 के आम चुनाव में किसकी सरकार बनेगी?

Free Consultancy


  • 1 -No. It is the employers' share which provides benefit of the judgments and para 11(3) of EPS Scheme, 1995.
  • 1 -The inherent clarification of the present judgment and of the SC judgement dated 04.10.2016 in the case of R.C. Gupta is that if contribution on higher salary in to EPF account has been paid as employers' , it treated as deemed option under para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.
  • 1 -Yes, they will. Procedure yet has been formulated is that employee has to submit his willingness under para 11(3) through his employer, who has to give details of the contribution with that of the difference payable with interest and forward it to the EPFO office for verification. After verification, the EPFO will intimate the amount payable by the employee/member concerned. On refund of such amount, further action will be taken by the EPFO.


  • 1 -

    Section 4 requires that an employer needs to constitute an Internal Committee to deal with complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace.

    The employer has been defined under section 2 of the 2013 Act, as" in relation to any department organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution office branch or unit of the appropriate government or a local authority, the head of that department, organization officer etc.In short it is anyone who is reponsible for managment, supervision and control of the workplace and including a dwelling place or house.

         Many employers however feel that one need not comply in case there are no women employees or if they are a small or medium enterprise.They also feel that the law is for the protection of women employees only but doesn't know that an organization/company is liable even if the Complainant is not an employee.

          It is a mandatory requirement under the Act to constitute an Internal Committee wherever there at 10 or more employees irrespective whether there are any women on rolls or not.

  • 1 -All such EPS members for whom their employees have contributed on higher salary as employer's share to EPF either from 16.03.21996 (the GSR 134 dated 28/02/1996 was published in the Official Gezatte) or from the date their pay form EPF contribution crossed the prevailing ceiling of wages.
  • 1 -

    Report of the Inspector of ESI Corporation without verfication of attendance registers, payment of wages registers and such other records indicating full name, father's  name, address etc. of the concerned employee's showing number of employees 20 now 10 or more for coverage under the Employees'  State Insurance Act, 1948 that too in the absence of sufficient proof of use of power in manufacturing process, is not tenable for the purpose of determining the ESI contributions by covering the firm under the Act.

    Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs.Tower Readymades, Nagercoil, 2014 LLR 34 (Mad. H C).