SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 62

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore – Appellant
Versus
central Aercanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Co-op. LTD. – Respondent


Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held that 45 persons who were selected as trainees were not covered by Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the ‘Act’) as they cannot be called as “employees” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The respondent invited applications from the intending applicants for undergoing training at its Chocolate Factory, Puttur on a stipend of Rs. 600/- per month which may be increased to Rs. 800/- per month after six months. It was also provided that the successful candidates may be considered for regular posting in the factory. By its resolution dated 21.1.1990 after interviewing 270 applicants, 45 persons were selected. By a combined order dated 3.2.1990, Managing Director notified the 45 persons who were selected. It was clearly indicated therein that the training in the factory does not entitle any trainee to claim right of appointment after completion of training period. It was also stip





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top