With all parties hardening their stand, the issue is unlikely to be
resolved in a hurry. The view expressed by the majority of race goers is
that while the trainers demand and get all the facilities from everyone
concerned, they are found wanting when it came to as basic a demand as
Provident Fund, from the syces.
The Karnataka Trainers Association is contesting the notice slapped by
the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, demanding payment of
provident fund from retrospective effect (1998) and the matter is in
court. As far as the Bangalore Turf Club is concerned, the Provident
Fund Tribunal, New Delhi, has held that syces are not the employees of
the Bangalore Turf Club nearly 10 months ago. BTC had incorporated the
new clause when it issued licenses to new trainers last November which
was in the knowledge of owners and trainers associations and the same
has now been incorporated while renewing licenses for the older
trainers. A similar clause has been incorporated by HRC as part of the
undertaking given by individual trainers to the club.
Apart from all the technicalities and disputing the applicability of the
PF and other acts, the principal question that begs to be answered is:
Why are the trainers shy of identifying themselves as employers of syces
which is a factual and indisputable position. The present attitude of
the trainers suggests that there is no employer. Can we be subject to a
situation of there being an employee without an employer?
Related Story : Stalemate at Bangalore Turf Club
