Mohammad Jaafar Montazeri, the head of the General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice, issued a notice and announced that the Social Security Organization had included the purchase and sale of equipment and consumer items of companies to pay insurance premiums, which has met with strong opposition and criticism from private sector activists. was

Mohammad Jaafar Montazeri, the head of the General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice, issued a notice and announced that the Social Security Organization had included the purchase and sale of equipment and consumer items of companies to pay insurance premiums, which has met with strong opposition and criticism from private sector activists. was

During various meetings and meetings, this issue, along with other problems such as the inspection of offices in a 10-year period, was criticized and complained by private sector activists, and private sector activists such as the Tehran Chamber put the pursuit of solving these challenges on the agenda through various channels.
Now, the general board of the Administrative Court of Justice has stated in its decision that the type of contract and its subject matter are determined by the parties to the contract, i.e. the employer and the contractor, and the social security organization has the right to determine the type of contract and to merge and aggregate various contracting contracts with different subjects. Not predicted. Therefore, this organization cannot include purchase and sale contracts under the title of contract contracts.
It seems that with the issuance of this decision by the Administrative Court of Justice, this challenge of economic activists in facing the social security organization will be resolved and the private sector activists will be able to use this decision in their defense.
According to the decision of the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice, contracts for the purchase of equipment and consumer items that lack human labor and goods are exchanged are excluded from the scope of insurance premiums, and the interpretation and expansion of purchase and sale contracts to contracting contracts is the subject of Article 38 of the Social Security Law by the inspectors. (Auditors) Social security has no legal authority according to the said decision.

The vote of the general board is as follows:

Considering that according to Article 10 of the Civil Law, the type of contract and its subject matter are determined by the parties to the contract, i.e. the employer and the contractor, and the social security organization has no right to determine the type of contract and to merge and consolidate various contracting contracts with different subjects; Rather, based on paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Social Security Law, insurance premiums in a certain amount including 7% of the insured, 20% of the employer and 3% of the government can be collected for each insured person. The contractor must be provided with an account of the paid insurance premium, and the paid insurance premium is related to the contracts that use human power.
Therefore, contracts for the purchase of equipment and consumer items that are made without the presence of workers and are concluded independently are excluded from the scope of insurance premium payment due to the lack of insured manpower, and the insurance premium should only be collected from contracts that have labor. Mandatory labor insurance premiums must be paid.
For this reason, decree number 561 – 560 – 18/3/2018, Branch 17, which did not consider the purchase contract without the use of labor to be subject to insurance premium, and the merger and consolidation of the contract without labor with the contract with labor by the social security organization is against the law. It is known and the obligation of the social security organization to determine the insurance premium only based on the labor contract and the insured is determined to be correct and in accordance with the regulations. This decision is mandatory for the branches of the Administrative Court of Justice and other related administrative authorities in similar cases, based on paragraph 2 of Article 12 and Article 89 of the Law on Organizations and Procedures of the Court of Administrative Justice approved in 2013.

This post is written by pooya678