Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Panther Security Service Private Limited Vs Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation And Another (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 4434­-4435 of 2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 02//12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Panther Security Service Private Limited Vs Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation And Another (Supreme Court of India)

We have no doubt in our mind that the appellant is engaged in the specialised and expert services of providing trained and efficient security guards to its clients on payment basis. The contention that the appellant merely facilitated in providing Chowkidars cannot be countenanced. The provisions of the Act of 2005 make it manifest that the appellant is the employer of such security guards and who are its employees and are paid wages by the appellant. Merely because the client pays money under a contract to the appellant and in turn the appellant pays the wages of such security guards from such contractual amount received by it, it does not make the client the employer of the security guard nor do the security guards constitute employees of the client. The appellant therefore is squarely covered by the Notification dated 17.05.1971.

10. The appellant never made available the statutory registers under the Act of 2005 to the authorities under the EPF Act. In fact, we have no hesitation in holding that it actually withheld relevant papers. This coupled with the letter dated 03.04.2001 written by the appellant, the appellant’s balance sheet seized for the financial years 2003­-04, 2004­-05, 2005-­06 and 2006­-07 showing payment of wages running into lacs, necessarily and only leads to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant has more than 20 employees on its roles. The provisions of the Act therefore necessarily apply to it.

11. Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana (supra) has no relevance to the present controversy as it concerned to the provision of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. The applicability of the EPF Act did not fall for consideration there. Saraswath Films (supra) was in the context of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 interpreting the term “immediate employer”, which again has no relevance to the present controversy.

12. That the provisions of the EPF Act are applicable to a private security agency engaged in the expert service of providing personnel to its client, if it meets the requirement of the EPF Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031