Connect with us

Business

Setback for expatriates? Delhi HC upholds mandatory EPFO membership; what this means for foreign staff – The Times of India

Published

on

Setback for expatriates? Delhi HC upholds mandatory EPFO membership; what this means for foreign staff – The Times of India


The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled that expatriates working in Indian companies must become members of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and contribute to the fund regardless of their income levels.The court upheld amendments to the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as well as the Centre’s 2008 and 2010 notifications that mandate international workers to contribute to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF).Under the ruling, international workers will be allowed to withdraw their full EPF balance only after retiring at or after the age of 58, or in cases of permanent and total incapacity. This is seen as a setback for expatriates who generally work in India for shorter periods of two to five years, reported ET. Indian workers, by comparison, are required to contribute if they earn below Rs 15,000 per month. Legal experts noted that many foreign employees have already left India, meaning employers will now have to bear their share of contributions.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the distinction between foreign and Indian employees was justified. The court accepted the government’s position that international workers form a separate group because they contribute only during their limited time in India, unlike domestic employees who contribute throughout their service.“The classification made was reasonable and it also has an object sought to be achieved that the purpose of mandating an employee to be a member of 1952 scheme was to provide social security,” the court said, as quoted by ET.The court also upheld EPFO communications directing SpiceJet and LG Electronics India to deposit provident fund and related dues for their international staff. It dismissed SpiceJet’s challenge to summons issued in 2012 requiring it to produce records for determining liabilities, and similarly rejected objections raised by LG Electronics.The Delhi High Court’s ruling aligns with a previous judgment of the Bombay High Court, while the Karnataka High Court has ruled to the contrary. Due to the conflicting views, the matter is expected to reach the Supreme Court for final interpretation. Both companies are assessing the implications and are likely to move to the Supreme Court, according to legal sources.Atul Sharma, counsel for SpiceJet, said, “The entire basis of amendment to the scheme is implementation to certain treaties with countries who have similar provision for social security. And under the Constitution of India, this amendment could not be implemented as treaties have not been ratified by Parliament.” He said the issue requires further consideration.The companies had argued that the classification between foreign and Indian employees was discriminatory.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Business

Just Eat and Autotrader among five firms under investigation over online reviews

Published

on

Just Eat and Autotrader among five firms under investigation over online reviews



Food delivery giant Just Eat, funeral firm Dignity and motor platform Autotrader are among five firms under investigation by the UK’s competition watchdog as part of its crackdown on fake and misleading online reviews.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it had launched probes against the companies – also including customer review and feedback firm Feefo and Pasta Evangelists – to see whether consumer laws have been broken.

Since April last year, companies have been banned from certain tactics around online reviews under law, such as fake posts, paid-for reviews that are not clearly marked as incentivised, as well as for hiding negative feedback.

Sarah Cardell, chief executive of the CMA, said: “Fake reviews strike at the heart of consumer trust – with many of us worrying about misleading content when looking at reviews online.

“With household budgets under pressure, people need to know they’re getting genuine information – not reviews or star ratings that have been manipulated to push them towards the wrong choice.

“We’ve given businesses the time to get things right. Now we’re deploying our new powers to tackle some of the most harmful practices head on.”

The CMA said it was looking into whether Just Eat’s ratings system had inflated some restaurant and grocer star ratings, giving a misleading picture of quality.

For Autotrader and Feefo, the CMA is investigating whether a number of one-star reviews – moderated by Feefo, which handles reviews for the new and used car site – were hidden on the platform and did not count towards the star ratings.

Dignity is under investigation by the CMA into whether it asked staff to write positive reviews about the firm’s crematoria services.

And artisan fresh pasta chain Pasta Evangelists is being probed over allegations it offered customers discounts for leaving five-star reviews on delivery apps without this being disclosed.

If the CMA finds the firms have broken the law, it can order them to change their practices and fine them up to 10% of their annual global sales.

An Autotrader spokesperson said: “We endeavour always to operate as a responsible and compliant business and will co-operate fully with the CMA’s investigation.”

It comes after the CMA recently secured commitments from Google and Amazon to beef up their systems to identify and remove fake reviews.

Amazon last June agreed to put in place “robust processes” to quickly detect and remove fake reviews alongside sanctions for rogue sellers and businesses after an investigation by the CMA to curb the customer hazard.

The tech giant said it would sanction businesses that boost their star ratings via bogus reviews or catalogue abuse, including bans from selling on the website, while users could also be banned for posting fake reviews.

Consumer group Which? welcomed the investigations and said the CMA must “get tough” on firms found to be breaking the law with reviews.

Sue Davies, head of consumer rights policy at Which?, said: “Investigations are a welcome first step, but enforcement will be key – the regulator must be prepared to get tough, use its powers and issue serious fines if these companies aren’t playing by the rules.”

The CMA said it swept more than 100 review publishers as part of the clampdown and sent advisory letters to 54 firms to improve their compliance with the law, with 90% having made changes in response and 75% telling the watchdog they better understood the rules.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Australia fuel crisis: Panic buying prompts PM to reassure nation over fuel supply

Published

on

Australia fuel crisis: Panic buying prompts PM to reassure nation over fuel supply



Anthony Albanese says nation’s supply remains “secure” amid reports of panic buying and shortages.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial

Published

on

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial



A woman has been awarded $6m in a verdict that could have implications for hundreds of other cases in the US.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending