Course Code: HRM-354 Course Title: Labour Law

Course Instructor: Mr. Ravish Verma Section: Q3E95

Academic Task No.: 01 Academic Task Title: M/s Tin Printers Pvt. Ltd V. Regional
Provident Fund
Date of Allotment: 10.08.2019 Date of submission: 24.08.2019

Student’s Roll no: A30,A31,A32,A33,A34 Student’s Reg. no: 11717512,11718692,11719369,11719881

11720053
Evaluation Parameters: (Parameters on which student is to be evaluated- To be mentioned by students
specified at the time of assigning the task by the instructor)

Learning Outcomes: (Student to write briefly about learnings obtained from the academic tasks)
a.
b.
Declaration:
We declare that this Assignment is our group work. We have not copied it from any other
student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made explicitly
in the text, nor has any part been written for me by any other person.

Student’s Signature:

Evaluator’s comments (For Instructor’s use only)

General Observations Suggestions for Improvement Best part of

assignment

Evaluator’s Signature and Date:

Marks Obtained: Max. Marks:_________________

1|Page
Peer Rating: -

Roll no Registration no Marks

A30 11717512 10
A31 11718692 07
A32 11719369 10
A33 11719881 10
A34 11720053 07

2|Page
Introduction:
The candidates had begun a Partnership business under a Deed of Partnership and were
occupied with printing and forming work since 1984, At the start, there were just five
representatives with two accomplices. Yet, in continuous course of time the quantity of
Partners were expanded from two to five and later on eleven workers were locked in. In this
manner in March 1996, the Partnership business was disintegrated and it was changed over
into a Private Limited Company under the name and style as S.G. Tin Printers Pvt. Ltd.
having been joined under the arrangements of the Companies' Act.

There was an assessment by the Inspector of the Provident Fund Commissioner and at such
time it was seen that the foundation connected with sixteen representatives and five Directors
were demonstrated to be additionally the workers of the Company. The arrangements of the
E.S.I. Act was pulled in since 1986. The requirement official of the respondent No.1 in his
letter dated 30th December, 1994 had conveyed to the candidates that the arrangements of
Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, is material since it had
connected in excess of twenty representatives. In light of the said letter the applicants gave
befitting answer by denying the relevance. The issue was, nonetheless, enquired into under
segment 7(A) and the respondents were of the view that since the candidates' foundation
secured under the Act, hence, they can't repudiate their risk to make commitment towards the
Provident Fund.

It has been presented by the solicitors that they established an association firm and the
accomplices have consented to share benefit and loss of the business carried on by every one
of them, even they got their pay/pay for the works rendered to the firm, despite such receipt
of compensation, the firm will not be subject to pay any commitment. On the off chance that
the Directors who have been filling in as laborers in the foundation are barred from figuring
the quantity of people occupied with the foundation at that point. It will not be secured under
the Act.

3|Page
Analysis of the case:
As far as situation is concerned what we have analysed that there was a company which was
running as partnership with the name of M/s tin printer Pvt. Ltd with the help of two partner
and five employees since 1984.Due to passes of time the number of partners has been
increased along with their employees where in March 1996 it got dissolve and converted into
private limited company with the name of S.G Tin printers under the provision Act.

Here the things is that, when the inspectors came for investigation in the establishment and
they inspected there were 16 employees and 5 directors were shown to be also employees of
the company. The respondent in his later 30-12-1952 communicated to the petitioners the
applicability of provident fund and miscellaneous act ,1952 there should be more than 20
employees.
But in reality, it was not like that, the people who are working as an employee and getting
salary of it so, they consider as employees of the company which has been said by inspectors
of provident commissioner. Here the reason is that the company has to pay their liable
contribution of provident fund.

By analysing the whole case we have founded that there was problem in relation between
employees and directors ,contribution ,not clear in post of director as they are working as
director or employee and issue in salary of directors and we have also observed that
,company was denying for provident fund for their employees who were working over there.
It reflects that they are not as much as loyal towards their employees as we know that
employees is like our assets on the assist of those employees we are able to increase our
productivity as well as fame of the company.

Another thing is that, we did not see any transparency between directors and employees due
to that there were problem in communication and employees were not able solve their issues
in easy ways. Here the transparency plays a crucial role in case of building empire so on the
basis of that we can think that how the transparency is important.

4|Page
There are some Problems which have encountered in this case are describe below:
1. Ambitious in number of Employees: As it has been stated that, the directors of the
company where they were considering them self as employees although they are
receiving salary form company whatever work has been done.

2. Issue in applicability of provident fund: As per provident fund act,1952 it has been
stated that, it will be only applicable when the number employees are more than 20
but the M/s S.G. Tin printers Pvt. Ltd has denied of applicability of provident fund
act,1952.

3. Issue in post of director and Employees: In this case directors were working as an
employee’s where it is not clear that whether they are working as director or
employees.

4. Not clarity between Employer and Employees: As per the situation there were not
apparent relationship between employer and employees where we have seen that
there was unclear relation between employer and employees.

5. Issue in salary of directors: Here in case of directors, they were getting salary as
employees which is not applicable as per Law.

6. Issue in contribution: As we have seen that there was problem in provident fund
contribution of Employees where company is not agreed to pay.

Some Possible solutions for the raised issues are described below:

5|Page
 I. As per provident fund act,1952 it has been stated that, it will be only applicable when
the number employees are more than 20. For the applicability of act, it should be
match with provision.

II. In this case directors were working as an employee’s where it is not clear that whether
they are working as director or employees. In any organization/company it should to
be clear the post of person whether they are directors or employees in the
organization. There should not be any chaos in case of post of directors and
employees in any company.

III. As per the situation there were not apparent relationship between employer and
employees where we have seen that there was unclear relation between employer and
employees. It’s mandatory to maintain proper relationship between directors and
employees due to that they can communicate by taking some distance or respect in
good manner in the company.

IV. Here in case, directors were getting salary as employees which was not clear whether
they are Woking as director or employees. Here the directors can’t get salary for work
done as employees, directors can get salary or fees for their own perform task and
position. The directors can get salary as employees but for that they have to fulfil the
legal requirement and pass some specific interview.

V. As we have seen that there was problem in provident fund contribution of Employees
where company was not agreed to pay. Here in this situation the number of employees
should be more than 20 for provident fund contribution along with that it should be
match with all terms and condition which is followed by provident fund act.

Recommendation and Suggestion:

6|Page
By analysing the whole case we came to know that, there was problem in various factors like
problems in contribution, problems in post of directors, problems in number of employees
and the relation between the directors and employees. For the betterment of the company
what we like to suggest are given below:
 Company has to decide the clear number of employees and board of director so that
there cant be any confusion between them.

 Company must follow the well policy to maintain the proper relation between
employees and directors it helps to create well communication chain and environment
in organization.

 Company has to follow all rules and regulation of the government in case of any
changes in company.

 There must be clear cut policy about the position of directors and employees.

 Company should to provide provident fund to the employees so employees get

motivation from it and work well for the organization and its also protect company
from any legal problem.

Conclusion:

7|Page
As we know that in every company/organization there is hierarchy chain like director,
Employee and workers like a same wise there were directors as well as employee who were
working in M/s S.G. tin private limited. There was well co-ordination between directors and
employees due to that there wouldn’t have arised any conflicts between them. As we know
that many of the company is shutting down day by day in recent scenario, conflict means
destroy of reputation when it arises that means creation of chaos/unsettlement of operation in
any company but it was totally settle down according to the case.

Earlier this company was working as partnership firm after the passing of time it has been
converted into private limited where we have seen that there was fluency in operation of M/s
S.G print private limited. It has been presented by the solicitors that they established an
association firm and the accomplices have consented to share benefit and loss of the business
carried on by every one of them, even they got their pay/pay for the works rendered to the
firm, despite such receipt of compensation, the firm will be subject to pay any commitment.
On the off chance that the Directors who have been filling in as laborers in the foundation are
barred from figuring the quantity of people occupied with the foundation at that point. It will
not be secured under the Act.

In this case directors were working as an employee’s where it is not clear that whether they
are working as director or employees. In that situation the motive was totally differ of
director where they were not intended to expose anything to outside, they were only trying to
increase the production to make the company in profit which reflect the dedication towards
their company to lead at the top. Another things is that, directors were trying to work as
employees and they were taking a salary and also to get rid off from contribution which
should be paid by company to their employees which was not as per the law.

According to law the number of employees should be more than 20 for provident fund
contribution where they were already 21 employees were working in company, for
contribution it was matching with all terms and condition which are followed by the
provident fund act.

References:

8|Page
  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22339/
 http://neurosearch.com/Default.aspx?ID=8244
 Gupta Parul, Industrial Relations and Labour Laws for Managers

9|Page