Provident fund
sachin agarwal
(Querist) 31 January 2016
This query is : Open
This is the settled law that in case the dues under the provident fund contribution for the certain employees is due from the part of the employer will be determined only with respect to those employees who are identifiable and whose entitlement can be proved on the evidence, and in the event the record is not available, it would not be obligated to explain its loss, or any adverse inference be drawn on this score.
Where the employer is engaged in the construction industry and in the said industry the employer has employed certain long-term employees for whom the provisions of the provident fund act, 1952 and a scheme thereunder are being followed regularly, yet there are certain casual workers who come to work at the construction sites of the employer for a address, then these work men not been identifiable and it is practically very difficult, in fact almost impossible, to comply with the requirements of the provident fund scheme in respect of such migrant labourers. Therefore, the order of the authority for provident fund contribution without a finding about identifiablity of the employees cannot be sustained.
That the conclusion is that if the identification of the employees for whom benefits of the product contribution is entitled to be made and it is not possible practically and almost impossible to collect the details of the proper identification of such unidentified employees, the order of the provident fund authority is unjustified and therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law because the provident fund contribution is not a tax but this is the fund for the benefits of eligible employees and if there is no proof of address of those eligible employees the benefits of the provident fund contribution cannot be handed over to the those eligible employees in accordance with the provision of law.
