i have question for the Trainees are employees / P.F. applicable for them please advice or share the documents for the same.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Texel,
You could have given sufficient information about the nature of your industry and the type of trainees. In certain industries like the hotel industry, BHM students are allowed to work as "Industrial Trainees." This allowance is part of their curriculum to provide industrial exposure during their education, making them industry-ready and employable. Sometimes, BHM students work as industrial trainees during their summer vacation. In these cases, hotels provide them with allowances. As industrial trainees, they are not direct employees, so PF is not applicable. However, their allowances are subject to ESI deduction.
In contrast, some companies hire freshly graduated individuals as "Trainees" and put them on the company's payroll with the designation of Trainee. In this scenario, trainees are considered full-time employees, and all statutory deductions, not just PF, become applicable.
In India, terms like trainees or apprentices are often used loosely or interchangeably, which is incorrect. I recently provided a clarifying reply on this topic. You can refer to it using the following link: https://www.citehr.com/582730-employ...-trainees.html
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
You could have given sufficient information about the nature of your industry and the type of trainees. In certain industries like the hotel industry, BHM students are allowed to work as "Industrial Trainees." This allowance is part of their curriculum to provide industrial exposure during their education, making them industry-ready and employable. Sometimes, BHM students work as industrial trainees during their summer vacation. In these cases, hotels provide them with allowances. As industrial trainees, they are not direct employees, so PF is not applicable. However, their allowances are subject to ESI deduction.
In contrast, some companies hire freshly graduated individuals as "Trainees" and put them on the company's payroll with the designation of Trainee. In this scenario, trainees are considered full-time employees, and all statutory deductions, not just PF, become applicable.
In India, terms like trainees or apprentices are often used loosely or interchangeably, which is incorrect. I recently provided a clarifying reply on this topic. You can refer to it using the following link: https://www.citehr.com/582730-employ...-trainees.html
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Mr. Dinesh has replied aptly and in detail. In a nutshell, any trainee who is being trained for their curriculum or for an internship stipend is paid. PF is not applicable in this case. However, any trainee hired for a job as a Job Trainee, PF is applicable to the best of my knowledge.
From India, Ahmadabad
From India, Ahmadabad
Texel should respond to the points raised by our learned members. I would presume that the employer appointed selected candidates to be employees who are initially called as 'Trainees' who are likely to be confirmed on completion of the prescribed 'training period' satisfactorily in suitable posts. If they fail, the unsuccessful ones will be ousted. Am I correct? In some establishments, they are appointed as "Management Trainees" and some call them Probationers. Some organizations conduct 'confirmatory appraisals' to evaluate their performances during the training period. It's commonly adopted either as a 'stipend' or a 'consolidated salary'. There are some establishments that appoint either honorary or paid trainees who are not given any assurance whatsoever, but top performers are absorbed in regular posts at par with any freshers. There are never-ending disputes going on always about how this training period(s) should be treated, as part of regular service or not. Opinions differ. Unless their status is decided, there cannot be clarity on EPF/ESI, etc.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Hi,
The Supreme Court has held that an apprentice or a trainee is not an employee, and the employer is not liable to contribute Provident Fund for him or her. Refer to [A trainee is not an employee: apex court - Today's Paper - The Hindu](http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/a-trainee-is-not-an-employee-apex-court/article3172570.ece).
From India, Bengaluru
The Supreme Court has held that an apprentice or a trainee is not an employee, and the employer is not liable to contribute Provident Fund for him or her. Refer to [A trainee is not an employee: apex court - Today's Paper - The Hindu](http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/a-trainee-is-not-an-employee-apex-court/article3172570.ece).
From India, Bengaluru
Dear Mr. Texel from Mumbai,
For reasons best known to you, you have not reverted with the information asked. Despite this, Honoured Members continue to share their information on the subject "Coverage of Trainees under EPF." This demonstrates the attitude of New Age HR Professionals.
From India, New Delhi
For reasons best known to you, you have not reverted with the information asked. Despite this, Honoured Members continue to share their information on the subject "Coverage of Trainees under EPF." This demonstrates the attitude of New Age HR Professionals.
From India, New Delhi
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.