CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed writ petitions by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) challenging an order of September last year of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner regarding Provident Fund coverage of the company employees.
The PF Commissioner had given a direction that Junior Telecom Officers (JTOs) or Junior Accounts Officers (JAOs) and other similarly placed employees of BSNL should be made members of the Employees Provident Fund and other schemes from the date on which they joined or reported for their pre-induction training, and that their contribution should be regulated accordingly.
When the Commissioner conducted an Adalat regarding PF in January last year, some of the employees working either as JTOs or JAOs had a grievance that their training period was not counted for coverage under the EPF Act. The Commissioner gave the direction dated September 1, 2010.
The BSNL filed the present petitions seeking to quash the official's order.
In his common order, Justice K.Chandru said that the definition of ‘employee' was wide enough to cover pre-induction training.
During the training period, for the second and third phases, the BSNL covered the employees concerned under the EPF.
There was no reason why the employees should not be covered even for the first phase.
It was too late for the company to contend that the pre-induction training could not be considered for the purpose of EPF Act.................THE Hindu
The PF Commissioner had given a direction that Junior Telecom Officers (JTOs) or Junior Accounts Officers (JAOs) and other similarly placed employees of BSNL should be made members of the Employees Provident Fund and other schemes from the date on which they joined or reported for their pre-induction training, and that their contribution should be regulated accordingly.
When the Commissioner conducted an Adalat regarding PF in January last year, some of the employees working either as JTOs or JAOs had a grievance that their training period was not counted for coverage under the EPF Act. The Commissioner gave the direction dated September 1, 2010.
The BSNL filed the present petitions seeking to quash the official's order.
In his common order, Justice K.Chandru said that the definition of ‘employee' was wide enough to cover pre-induction training.
During the training period, for the second and third phases, the BSNL covered the employees concerned under the EPF.
There was no reason why the employees should not be covered even for the first phase.
It was too late for the company to contend that the pre-induction training could not be considered for the purpose of EPF Act.................THE Hindu
