• Allotment of separate code numbers to different firms for coverage under the Act - Impugned order liable to be quashed.
Sunder Transport v. The Regional PF Commissioner, (1993) 66 FLR 528: (1993) 1 LLJ 810: (1993) 1 LLN 480: 1993 LLR 165 (Bom HC).
• Application under - For exemption from the operation of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has started its own beneficial scheme for its employees - No decision taken - Whether the petition is liable to comply with the provisions of the Act? Yes - Till the exemption is granted.
Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1994 LIC 1280: 1993 LLR 987: 1993-II CLR 505 (MP HC).
• The activities carried on by appellant pertaining to equipment leasing and merchant banking are intimately connected with 'goods' and appellant is commercial if not trading-establishment it cannot be said that said activities would fall outside the scope of the Notification dated 7-3-1962 for covering of 'trading and commercial' establishment to be covered under the Act.
Canbank Financial Services Ltd., Bangalore v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in Kilmataka, Bangalore
• Employees of the contractor working through contractors in an exempted establishment are to be covered under the EPF Act and the Scheme. The contractors should obtain their Code numbers and also deposit the contributions with the authorities.
Bata India Ltd. v. Union of India
• Beedi rollers engaged through contractor are to be covered under EPF & MP Act.
S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Ltd. v. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, (2001) 2 sec 612: 2001 SCC (L&5) 479: AIR 2001 SC 850: (2001) 1 LLN 905: 2001 LLR 263 (SC).
• The employees of a Hospital cycle stand engaged through a lessee will be covered under EPF & MP Act.
• Two schools run by the same society located adjacently at the same address will constitute a single establishment for coverage under Employees' Provident Funds Act.
• Starting entirely new business by the purchase of plant and machinery will not be continuity of business for coverage under Provident Funds Act.
Pregati Metal Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2001) 3 LLN 985: (2001) 3 CLR 67: (2001) 89 FLR 981: (2001) II LLJ 55: 2001 LLR 678.
• High Court will not set aside the coverage of a school under the Provident Fund when 20 persons were found as employed by the officials of the EPF Office and also the employer did not rebut the report of the inspector despite opportunity granted to this effect.
Ankur Vidya Mandir, Daloda, Dist. Mandsour v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore
• The Director of the Company, not being an employee of the Company, cannot be taken into consideration for coverage of an establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act when exclusive of the Director (s) there were less than 20 employees for attracting the applicability of the Act upon the establishment.
Union of India
• When there has been functional integrality including unity of supervision, finance, managerial control and ownership, etc. etc., the two establishments will be clubbed and cover able under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Paranjape Metal Shapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
• An establishment will be covered under the Provident Funds Act when 22 to 24 employees were found working.
Autocrat Tours v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2004) II CLR 763: (2004) 106 FJR 392: (2004) 102 FLR 268: (2004) III LLJ 143: 2004 LLR 780 (Del He).
• Provident Fund Act will not be extended to a school canteen merely because the space was given by the school.
Ketola Samajam Model School through its Trust In-charge A.P,R. Nair v. Union of India, 2006 LLR 383 (Jhar HC).
• Merely that a canteen was being nm in the premises of the school by the contractor, it will not be treated as a unit for extending provident fund.
• Coverage of employee under Provident Funds from the day of joining will not be illegal.
Kay Iron Works (Pot.) Ltd. v. Union of India
• Mineral water packing industry will not be covered under the Provident Funds Act since it does not come within Schedule I of the Act.
Shivam Aqua Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Patna
• Compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be proper when the workman has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months before his termination.
Prakash Budhaji Jadhav v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., 2007 LLR 418 (Bom HC).
• Coverage under Provident Funds is rightly made by including 12 piece-rated workers.
Jaggi & Co. v. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 2008 LLR 126 (Del HC).