Dear members, Can PF contribution be paid by splitting minimum wages ? Has any industry started this practice or it is legal now ? Regards,
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Naresh Yes, U can split minimum wages but u can not split minimum wages in Gurgaon only ? because in gurgaon commissioner had issue notification that u cant split minimum wages? Brijesh Saxena
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Naresh,
Greetings for the day,
As per the Honorable Supreme Court judgment, minimum wages consist of basic+DA/VDA, so it can't be split; rather, contributions will be paid in full. If you are splitting the same, prosecution will be conducted under Section 7A of the EPF & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Thanks & Regards,
From,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings for the day,
As per the Honorable Supreme Court judgment, minimum wages consist of basic+DA/VDA, so it can't be split; rather, contributions will be paid in full. If you are splitting the same, prosecution will be conducted under Section 7A of the EPF & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Thanks & Regards,
From,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
definition of wages in Minimum Wages Act & definition of wages in PF Act is different.... pl refer the recent judgement of SC ... Minimum wages can be split up for PF contribution,
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, see the recent judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the EPFO went for an appeal against the impugned order of the same court earlier on the decision of a Single judge.
Two-member judges passed an order stating that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the EPF & MP Act, 1952 are two different Acts. One cannot interpret the Basic wages as they feel like.
See the judgment of the P & H High Court.
However, there are two other judgments (Madhya Pradesh High Court and Madras High Court) that are against this concept. It means they have given judgment in favor of EPFO, i.e., to include all allowances in the basic and pay contribution. Against this order (Madras High Court), the employers have gone for an appeal in the High Court, and the hearing is posted on the 26th or 29th (I do not remember correctly). We will come to know once this is heard.
Hitherto, organizations (including ours) are practicing the splitting of Minimum Wages. We are continuing with the same concept unless and until there comes a clear-cut ruling.
It is your wish whether you want to split Minimum Wages or otherwise.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Two-member judges passed an order stating that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the EPF & MP Act, 1952 are two different Acts. One cannot interpret the Basic wages as they feel like.
See the judgment of the P & H High Court.
However, there are two other judgments (Madhya Pradesh High Court and Madras High Court) that are against this concept. It means they have given judgment in favor of EPFO, i.e., to include all allowances in the basic and pay contribution. Against this order (Madras High Court), the employers have gone for an appeal in the High Court, and the hearing is posted on the 26th or 29th (I do not remember correctly). We will come to know once this is heard.
Hitherto, organizations (including ours) are practicing the splitting of Minimum Wages. We are continuing with the same concept unless and until there comes a clear-cut ruling.
It is your wish whether you want to split Minimum Wages or otherwise.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No, the minimum wage can't be split, and the deduction of EPF is done on Basic+DA/VDA+Food Conc. (if any). If the minimum wage is a component of the same, how can it be split? Please forward a copy of the judgment to me so that we can go through it.
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Sumit,
Assume Minimum Wages in a particular state are Rs. 5500/- (a hypothetical figure, okay?). You (we) are splitting this as:
Basic: 2000/-
HRA: 1500/-
Conv: 800/-
CCA: 1200/-
Total: 5500/- and paying PF contribution of Rs. 240/- p.m.
1. As per the Punjab and Haryana High Court, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING IT as above. Please see my attachment now (previous judgment), and the recent judgment in my previous post.
2. Also, see other judgments of Madhya Pradesh (attached now) and Madras High Courts (this is voluminous and will send later).
3. See the chronological order:
Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment - favoring employer - 01/02/2011
Madras High Court favoring EPFO - 07/06/2011
Madhya Pradesh High Court - favoring EPFO - 21/06/2011
Punjab and Haryana High Court - favoring employer - 20/07/2011
You would understand there is a huge confusion in the orders itself. You go through the same and come back to me.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Assume Minimum Wages in a particular state are Rs. 5500/- (a hypothetical figure, okay?). You (we) are splitting this as:
Basic: 2000/-
HRA: 1500/-
Conv: 800/-
CCA: 1200/-
Total: 5500/- and paying PF contribution of Rs. 240/- p.m.
1. As per the Punjab and Haryana High Court, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING IT as above. Please see my attachment now (previous judgment), and the recent judgment in my previous post.
2. Also, see other judgments of Madhya Pradesh (attached now) and Madras High Courts (this is voluminous and will send later).
3. See the chronological order:
Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment - favoring employer - 01/02/2011
Madras High Court favoring EPFO - 07/06/2011
Madhya Pradesh High Court - favoring EPFO - 21/06/2011
Punjab and Haryana High Court - favoring employer - 20/07/2011
You would understand there is a huge confusion in the orders itself. You go through the same and come back to me.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here is the Madras High court order favouring EPFO. Read all judgments Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
Minimum wages cannot be split for PF contribution. PF calculation is done on minimum wages + basic salary. However, there was a recent proposal that all components of salary should be included in the calculation of PF contributions.
If the minimum wages after PF deduction are less than the minimum wages as per the government's notification on minimum wage rates, then such deduction shall be null and void. On the other hand, if the minimum wages are higher than the government's notified minimum wage rate, then the deduction shall be considered correct and valid.
Kindly refer to the Minimum Wages Act for more details.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Minimum wages cannot be split for PF contribution. PF calculation is done on minimum wages + basic salary. However, there was a recent proposal that all components of salary should be included in the calculation of PF contributions.
If the minimum wages after PF deduction are less than the minimum wages as per the government's notification on minimum wage rates, then such deduction shall be null and void. On the other hand, if the minimum wages are higher than the government's notified minimum wage rate, then the deduction shall be considered correct and valid.
Kindly refer to the Minimum Wages Act for more details.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi all,
There is a lot of controversy on this subject, and nobody could find a definition on this. Any which way it can be interpreted. However, in the recent notification from EPFO dated 23.05.2011, it clearly says for the PF contribution, at least to maintain the minimum wages and that cannot be split. I have enclosed the notification also for your reference.
But the problem here is all the PF officials are going according to section 2(b) of the act, which says all allowances paid to be included for PF contribution, whereas as per the recent notification, it's only minimum wages. But as per officials, you have to read both the sections together, i.e., section 2(b) and 7.
However, as said, a lot of interpretations are happening, and a lot of companies are getting affected, and I am also fighting with EPFO for the clarity as we got a notice for not contributing conveyance allowance.
Regards,
Pradeepan
From India, Raipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is a lot of controversy on this subject, and nobody could find a definition on this. Any which way it can be interpreted. However, in the recent notification from EPFO dated 23.05.2011, it clearly says for the PF contribution, at least to maintain the minimum wages and that cannot be split. I have enclosed the notification also for your reference.
But the problem here is all the PF officials are going according to section 2(b) of the act, which says all allowances paid to be included for PF contribution, whereas as per the recent notification, it's only minimum wages. But as per officials, you have to read both the sections together, i.e., section 2(b) and 7.
However, as said, a lot of interpretations are happening, and a lot of companies are getting affected, and I am also fighting with EPFO for the clarity as we got a notice for not contributing conveyance allowance.
Regards,
Pradeepan
From India, Raipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The whole problem started only after the circular issued by EPFO. The PF office cannot have locus standi to issue such an order. The Act is enacted in the Parliament, and if any changes are required, they are to be issued by the government. And that is where the problem lies. Everyone has their interpretation. Even in court orders, there seem to be differences of opinion between judges (which is why we see different judgments in different courts).
Do not get confused. Wait until the end of this month. There is a hearing coming in the Madras High Court against the order issued earlier. The matter will be thrashed out. We will know - as an employer - what to do. Have patience.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Do not get confused. Wait until the end of this month. There is a hearing coming in the Madras High Court against the order issued earlier. The matter will be thrashed out. We will know - as an employer - what to do. Have patience.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Balaji,
Someone raised the question in Lawyers Club India also based on the extant judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court. I replied to that question in the Experts column as well.
In fact, any judgment of a court becomes applicable only to that specific case in which the judgment is made, unless specific orders of the competent court are in place to apply to all similar cases, or formal amendments in the relevant law are made by the Parliament, or the head of the Nodal department (in this case, the EPFO in PF cases) issues specific orders to that effect.
Since neither the Parliament made any changes in the law, nor has the Commissioner issued any orders to make it applicable generally to all organizations, the effect of the judgment would remain restricted to the concerned organization in favor of which the orders have been issued. Furthermore, since the judgment is very recent, the EPFO, if it decides so, can also file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the said judgment.
In my view, it cannot be assumed to be effective generally for all organizations unless the concerned organizations are unable to obtain specific judgments individually in their favor based on the existing judgment.
Your comments would be valuable; if you have a differing opinion, please share.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Someone raised the question in Lawyers Club India also based on the extant judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court. I replied to that question in the Experts column as well.
In fact, any judgment of a court becomes applicable only to that specific case in which the judgment is made, unless specific orders of the competent court are in place to apply to all similar cases, or formal amendments in the relevant law are made by the Parliament, or the head of the Nodal department (in this case, the EPFO in PF cases) issues specific orders to that effect.
Since neither the Parliament made any changes in the law, nor has the Commissioner issued any orders to make it applicable generally to all organizations, the effect of the judgment would remain restricted to the concerned organization in favor of which the orders have been issued. Furthermore, since the judgment is very recent, the EPFO, if it decides so, can also file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the said judgment.
In my view, it cannot be assumed to be effective generally for all organizations unless the concerned organizations are unable to obtain specific judgments individually in their favor based on the existing judgment.
Your comments would be valuable; if you have a differing opinion, please share.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is unjust to split minimum wages for the sake of EPF contribution. It has never been practiced in the past to split minimum wages when it was Rs. 1500/- or Rs. 2000/-.
If the employer is paying allowances on minimum wages, then that can be acceptable.
Jimmii d
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the employer is paying allowances on minimum wages, then that can be acceptable.
Jimmii d
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Dhingra,
If you have a closer look at the circular floated by EPFO (from where the issue has started), you would understand they invoked certain judgments passed in cases such as RPFC, Punjab Vs. Shibu Metal Works, Crown Aluminium Works Vs. Workers Union, Kamani Metal Works & Alloys, civil appeal in the case of Air Freight Limited Vs. in the State of Karnataka and Others.
It is a common phenomenon that whenever such disputes take place, there is a tendency to quote the judgment or decree issued in favor or against that particular concept.
When EPFO issued the circular, they quoted all the above cases justifying their requirement of the inclusion of all allowances in the basic wages and sought contributions on allowances.
When EPFO refers to such cases, it is also possible for employers to quote certain court judgments supporting their claims. Therefore, it is common for anyone to refer to cases.
What I am trying to say is that there are different views in different forums, and the question now is who is the deciding authority. When the Act is enacted in Parliament, whether EPFO has locus standi to issue such circulars and whether it has any merit is a pertinent question. If EPFO initiates an inquiry against employers and passes separate orders for each inquiry initiated against such employers, and every employer has to approach the High Court/Supreme Court and obtain orders against such decisions, where does it end? Therefore, in my opinion, there should have been a clear-cut rule passed by Parliament regarding this issue with more clarity. Unless this happens, the EPF Tribunal, High Courts, and Supreme Courts will be flooded with appeals and claims. How many of us (employers)/you are ready to spend your productive time in tribunals and courts?
Please refer to the letter sent to EPFO, Delhi by Mr. H.L. Kumar, who is also an advocate like you, and who runs a big organization "Labour Law Reporter." I read the letter, but I do not have a copy of it at this point in time. (I will post it later). Mr. Kumar sought certain clarifications regarding this issue, but I do not think he has received any reply from them until now.
The circular issued by EPFO and court judgments have been floating around only to confuse and further complicate things, providing no solution. In the whole process, employers are harassed, and nothing more.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you have a closer look at the circular floated by EPFO (from where the issue has started), you would understand they invoked certain judgments passed in cases such as RPFC, Punjab Vs. Shibu Metal Works, Crown Aluminium Works Vs. Workers Union, Kamani Metal Works & Alloys, civil appeal in the case of Air Freight Limited Vs. in the State of Karnataka and Others.
It is a common phenomenon that whenever such disputes take place, there is a tendency to quote the judgment or decree issued in favor or against that particular concept.
When EPFO issued the circular, they quoted all the above cases justifying their requirement of the inclusion of all allowances in the basic wages and sought contributions on allowances.
When EPFO refers to such cases, it is also possible for employers to quote certain court judgments supporting their claims. Therefore, it is common for anyone to refer to cases.
What I am trying to say is that there are different views in different forums, and the question now is who is the deciding authority. When the Act is enacted in Parliament, whether EPFO has locus standi to issue such circulars and whether it has any merit is a pertinent question. If EPFO initiates an inquiry against employers and passes separate orders for each inquiry initiated against such employers, and every employer has to approach the High Court/Supreme Court and obtain orders against such decisions, where does it end? Therefore, in my opinion, there should have been a clear-cut rule passed by Parliament regarding this issue with more clarity. Unless this happens, the EPF Tribunal, High Courts, and Supreme Courts will be flooded with appeals and claims. How many of us (employers)/you are ready to spend your productive time in tribunals and courts?
Please refer to the letter sent to EPFO, Delhi by Mr. H.L. Kumar, who is also an advocate like you, and who runs a big organization "Labour Law Reporter." I read the letter, but I do not have a copy of it at this point in time. (I will post it later). Mr. Kumar sought certain clarifications regarding this issue, but I do not think he has received any reply from them until now.
The circular issued by EPFO and court judgments have been floating around only to confuse and further complicate things, providing no solution. In the whole process, employers are harassed, and nothing more.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Balaji,
Please don't get confused, as only the EPFO has the authority to issue clarificatory circulars even on the basis of judgments. However, a particular judgment does not apply to any other organization other than the organization referred to in the case until the EPFO acknowledges the universality of the judgment and agrees to apply it to all organizations. Therefore, any organization, other than the concerned one, cannot presume the judgment's applicability unless specifically affected by a court order or the EPFO.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please don't get confused, as only the EPFO has the authority to issue clarificatory circulars even on the basis of judgments. However, a particular judgment does not apply to any other organization other than the organization referred to in the case until the EPFO acknowledges the universality of the judgment and agrees to apply it to all organizations. Therefore, any organization, other than the concerned one, cannot presume the judgment's applicability unless specifically affected by a court order or the EPFO.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear PS Dingra,
It is wrong to say that the judgment of a particular High Court is restricted only to a particular geographic location. High Court rulings and Supreme Court judgments are used as precedents and in future cases of a similar nature. A High Court judgment can be overruled by the Supreme Court or a full bench of the same or another High Court.
It is purely the discretion of a High Court to accept the views of another court when a case of the same nature is presented. If different High Courts conclude different views on the same matter, then the disputed matter has to be decided by a full bench of any High Court. If the order of a full bench of a High Court has to be challenged, the same can be done by an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Please refer to the Constitution of India for clarity on the same.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is wrong to say that the judgment of a particular High Court is restricted only to a particular geographic location. High Court rulings and Supreme Court judgments are used as precedents and in future cases of a similar nature. A High Court judgment can be overruled by the Supreme Court or a full bench of the same or another High Court.
It is purely the discretion of a High Court to accept the views of another court when a case of the same nature is presented. If different High Courts conclude different views on the same matter, then the disputed matter has to be decided by a full bench of any High Court. If the order of a full bench of a High Court has to be challenged, the same can be done by an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Please refer to the Constitution of India for clarity on the same.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Octavious,
I have not used the words "particular geographic location" anywhere in any of my two posts. Probably, you have misinterpreted the word "universality" used by me, which was intended to convey that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that specific case, not to all other organizations unless ordered by the competent court, through an amendment to the relevant law, or by the organizations deciding to apply it uniformly to all.
In that respect, you have also agreed that the judgment can be used as a precedent in future cases solely at the discretion of the courts. This also conveys the same message I intended to convey. Hopefully, you have also read my previous reply, which conveys the same idea. In other words, no organization, other than the one on whose case the judgment was delivered, can automatically consider the judgment universally applicable to all organizations unless specifically ordered to do so.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have not used the words "particular geographic location" anywhere in any of my two posts. Probably, you have misinterpreted the word "universality" used by me, which was intended to convey that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that specific case, not to all other organizations unless ordered by the competent court, through an amendment to the relevant law, or by the organizations deciding to apply it uniformly to all.
In that respect, you have also agreed that the judgment can be used as a precedent in future cases solely at the discretion of the courts. This also conveys the same message I intended to convey. Hopefully, you have also read my previous reply, which conveys the same idea. In other words, no organization, other than the one on whose case the judgment was delivered, can automatically consider the judgment universally applicable to all organizations unless specifically ordered to do so.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Dingra,
You tend to commit a fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case and not to all other organizations unless ordered by the competent court, amended in the relevant law, or applied uniformly by the organizations. I say a fallacy is committed because of the following reasons:
1. A judgment can be used in another organization if the matter is of the same nature, the question raised or asked is the same, and no new question or query is raised.
2. Precedents do not amend any statute or established law but clarify ambiguity and opacity. The amendment of the law is with the legislature, not the judiciary.
3. A judgment must be followed by any organization party to or affected by it until overruled. Precedents that affect the public in general are applicable not only to the parties to the case but also to others who are or may be affected by the judgment.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You tend to commit a fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case and not to all other organizations unless ordered by the competent court, amended in the relevant law, or applied uniformly by the organizations. I say a fallacy is committed because of the following reasons:
1. A judgment can be used in another organization if the matter is of the same nature, the question raised or asked is the same, and no new question or query is raised.
2. Precedents do not amend any statute or established law but clarify ambiguity and opacity. The amendment of the law is with the legislature, not the judiciary.
3. A judgment must be followed by any organization party to or affected by it until overruled. Precedents that affect the public in general are applicable not only to the parties to the case but also to others who are or may be affected by the judgment.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" cannot be termed as correct. I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country." Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court. Article 141 of the Constitution has given the Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament. The same is applicable for High Court judgments regarding its binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High Court.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" cannot be termed as correct. I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country." Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court. Article 141 of the Constitution has given the Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament. The same is applicable for High Court judgments regarding its binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High Court.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Octavious,
If you find fallacy in my statement, you are free to sue me in some competent court of law at Delhi. Alternatively, quote the relevant section of any law or court judgment in support of your own statement that a judgment can be made generally applicable to all other cases of other organizations without any specific order of the court of law or amendment to the relevant law, or by the issue of specific instructions by the concerned department. On the other hand, I feel that your statement may be misleading the managements of various other organizations.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you find fallacy in my statement, you are free to sue me in some competent court of law at Delhi. Alternatively, quote the relevant section of any law or court judgment in support of your own statement that a judgment can be made generally applicable to all other cases of other organizations without any specific order of the court of law or amendment to the relevant law, or by the issue of specific instructions by the concerned department. On the other hand, I feel that your statement may be misleading the managements of various other organizations.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kamal,
Alteration of the words of the article by anyone may not change the sense of the article referred to by you. You are requested to reread Article 141 and interpret the same accordingly.
Article 141 states, "Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding," not that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding," as you have stated.
Further, even your post confirms my conviction. Unless any law is declared to be binding by the Supreme Court, that shall not be binding on unreported cases to any court in general, let alone on private organizations presuming it to be binding on them.
Moreover, the said Article 141 stresses upon all other courts (not companies/enterprises) to follow the law of the Supreme Court as binding. So, any law declared to be binding on courts does not authorize private organizations to take any judgment granted to their benefit without any judgment by any court in their own cases. Therefore, unless any such case comes before any court of law, the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be made automatically applicable at the hands of any organization without the courts going into the merits of the case.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" cannot be termed as correct.
I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country." Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution has given the Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament.
The same is applicable for High Court judgments regarding their binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High Court.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Alteration of the words of the article by anyone may not change the sense of the article referred to by you. You are requested to reread Article 141 and interpret the same accordingly.
Article 141 states, "Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding," not that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding," as you have stated.
Further, even your post confirms my conviction. Unless any law is declared to be binding by the Supreme Court, that shall not be binding on unreported cases to any court in general, let alone on private organizations presuming it to be binding on them.
Moreover, the said Article 141 stresses upon all other courts (not companies/enterprises) to follow the law of the Supreme Court as binding. So, any law declared to be binding on courts does not authorize private organizations to take any judgment granted to their benefit without any judgment by any court in their own cases. Therefore, unless any such case comes before any court of law, the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be made automatically applicable at the hands of any organization without the courts going into the merits of the case.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" cannot be termed as correct.
I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country." Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by the Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution has given the Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament.
The same is applicable for High Court judgments regarding their binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High Court.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
After reviewing the judgments of various high courts and the official order issued by EPFO on behalf of the Supreme Court of India, I must express my opinion that the minimum wage should not be split. As far as the judiciary is concerned, a high court cannot overrule a Supreme Court judgment. My view is firm that the minimum wage should never be divided, and contributions should be based on the same.
Thanks and regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
After reviewing the judgments of various high courts and the official order issued by EPFO on behalf of the Supreme Court of India, I must express my opinion that the minimum wage should not be split. As far as the judiciary is concerned, a high court cannot overrule a Supreme Court judgment. My view is firm that the minimum wage should never be divided, and contributions should be based on the same.
Thanks and regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of the Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgment.
I would request you to go through the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, in which the Supreme Court expounded Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it would be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, and a judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of the Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgment.
I would request you to go through the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, in which the Supreme Court expounded Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it would be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, and a judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kamal,
Have you read Article 141 of the Constitution? If you have read it, please point out where in Article 141 it states that "the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement." Also, please clarify if any person/institution/organization is exempted from receiving specific orders in their case without delving into the merits of the case of that organization by the courts.
Furthermore, the judgment from July 2011 discussing the bifurcation of wages pertains to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and does not relate to the Supreme Court.
It would be beneficial if you could attach a copy of the judgment you referred to in your post to enhance my understanding and perspective through that judgment.
Your post seems to imply that you do not distinguish between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
For your information, Section 141 is part of a chapter specifically addressing "THE UNION JUDICIARY." This chapter of the Constitution does not deal with "CITIZENS" or their fundamental rights, trade, commerce, finance, contracts, or services of employees with private organizations.
I would appreciate it if you could cite any provision of law that equates COURTS and INDIVIDUALS/INSTITUTIONS on an equal footing.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, stating that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement.
I would like to draw your attention to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, where the Supreme Court expounded on Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it becomes the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. A judgment of the High Court that refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court that had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Have you read Article 141 of the Constitution? If you have read it, please point out where in Article 141 it states that "the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement." Also, please clarify if any person/institution/organization is exempted from receiving specific orders in their case without delving into the merits of the case of that organization by the courts.
Furthermore, the judgment from July 2011 discussing the bifurcation of wages pertains to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and does not relate to the Supreme Court.
It would be beneficial if you could attach a copy of the judgment you referred to in your post to enhance my understanding and perspective through that judgment.
Your post seems to imply that you do not distinguish between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
For your information, Section 141 is part of a chapter specifically addressing "THE UNION JUDICIARY." This chapter of the Constitution does not deal with "CITIZENS" or their fundamental rights, trade, commerce, finance, contracts, or services of employees with private organizations.
I would appreciate it if you could cite any provision of law that equates COURTS and INDIVIDUALS/INSTITUTIONS on an equal footing.
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of Article by anyone may not change the sense of Article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain the same, stating that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization, including those who are not a party to that order/judgement.
I would like to draw your attention to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002, where the Supreme Court expounded on Article 141 and held that "when the Supreme Court decides a principle, it becomes the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. A judgment of the High Court that refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court that had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
With due respect, I would like to say that I do find a lot of difference between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
However, at the same time, I also know and understand that any court's judgments are pronounced on the appeal of individual persons/groups/institutions, etc., and it is an individual person/group/institution that is affected by the judgment of any court, directly or indirectly.
I am also confident that the court does not accept an appeal from an alien, and court judgments are not pronounced for aliens.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With due respect, I would like to say that I do find a lot of difference between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institutions, etc."
However, at the same time, I also know and understand that any court's judgments are pronounced on the appeal of individual persons/groups/institutions, etc., and it is an individual person/group/institution that is affected by the judgment of any court, directly or indirectly.
I am also confident that the court does not accept an appeal from an alien, and court judgments are not pronounced for aliens.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Did I say aliens in any of my posts?
Evidently, with all your irritation, you are going totally off track on your own statement on the pretext of aliens just to evade from your wrong interpretation about Article 141 of the Constitution. However, you do not seem to admit reality about the courts versus the individuals/institutions. I won't have any objection if you start working in your organization or advise your clients on the basis of the P&H judgment delivered in favor of M/s G4S Security Services and see the results yourself. Wish you all the best!
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Evidently, with all your irritation, you are going totally off track on your own statement on the pretext of aliens just to evade from your wrong interpretation about Article 141 of the Constitution. However, you do not seem to admit reality about the courts versus the individuals/institutions. I won't have any objection if you start working in your organization or advise your clients on the basis of the P&H judgment delivered in favor of M/s G4S Security Services and see the results yourself. Wish you all the best!
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear PS Dhingra
I fully support Kamal, on his views on the above topic, please read article 131A,135,141,32,131,132,140,138,139,32A, these articles will help you understand the powers and jurisdiction of Supreme court.
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I fully support Kamal, on his views on the above topic, please read article 131A,135,141,32,131,132,140,138,139,32A, these articles will help you understand the powers and jurisdiction of Supreme court.
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Octavious,
I appreciate your efforts for taking trouble to oppose tooth and nail my contention by quoting even the repealed Articles of the Constitution. Quotation of repealed articles, like 32A, 131A, clearly indicates that you are reading just between the lines, while the Constitution of India clearly indicates the facts of repealment against the Article concerned by clearly referring the relevant Constitution Amendment Acts of 1977 (both). Both the Articles were repealed 33 years back to be effective from 13.04.1978.
I don't have any objection, if you support the wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal, but I wonder a SUPER MODERATOR, like you, prefers to support the wrong views that too by virtue of super old knowledge of more 33+ years and also by misinterpreting the provisions of the existing Constitution of India tending to only mislead the community, rather than showing a right path or solution to the community seeking guidance from us.
Further, you probably forget that the Constitution has been divided in different sections/parts and the chapter of each part discusses matters pertaining only to matters related to that subject by not touching any other aspect. You can very well see that except the Articles 32 and 32A, all the Articles (131A,135,141,131,132,140,138,139) quoted by you discuss only about the "UNION JUDICIARY" to be applicable to ONLY the judiciary and not the public in general or business, etc. This aspect I have already mentioned in my last reply to Shri Kamal's post.
Now coming to Article 32, this relates to "REMEDIES for enforcement of rights" of the individual citizens. Needless to emphasize, remedies on arising of any dispute are sought by some one who is aggrieved, but cannot be assumed unauthorisedly by him. The Article very clearly states about the RIGHT TO MOVE SUPREME COURT BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, not by presuming that the Supreme Court should itself presume about any dispute existing between individual to individual and start automatically moving itself, unless some one files a petition about the nature of dispute with some other party.
Article 32A, relating to Constitutional validity of State Laws, which was only deleted more than 33 years back, but also has nothing to do with the Central relating to EPFO.
I wonder, how as a super moderator you believe that the P&H judgment of July 2011 also has the same value as that of the Supreme Court when you very well know that the EPFO can still file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the orders under the provisions of Article 133 (as avoided quoting in your post) to get that quashed. Moreover, there was no direction of the P&H High Court for the EPFO to implement their judgment to the cases of lakhs of the contributing organisations.
You have also avoided to quote Article 142 of the Constitution along with other Articles in your reply. Probably, you have NOT tried to interpret the same where it clearly states that the Supreme Court has also to make such ORDER and prescribe manner to make any decree or order enforceable under any law made by the parliament and UNTIL provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by ORDER prescribe.
The Article, thus clearly emphasises on specific order by the Supreme Court for general application that too only up till the President of India makes any specific order and prescribes the manner in that respect. BUT NOT in any individual case to be implemented in general manner merely on presumption basis and without any specific authority issued either by the Supreme Court or the President of India. Here in this case the irony is that the order, itself, does not relate to the Supreme Court, nor even the High Court, what to say of Supreme Court has issued any specific orders for applying the same in general to all the organisations, other than the G4S Security Services, in whose case the judgment has been delivered by the P&H High Court.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate your efforts for taking trouble to oppose tooth and nail my contention by quoting even the repealed Articles of the Constitution. Quotation of repealed articles, like 32A, 131A, clearly indicates that you are reading just between the lines, while the Constitution of India clearly indicates the facts of repealment against the Article concerned by clearly referring the relevant Constitution Amendment Acts of 1977 (both). Both the Articles were repealed 33 years back to be effective from 13.04.1978.
I don't have any objection, if you support the wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal, but I wonder a SUPER MODERATOR, like you, prefers to support the wrong views that too by virtue of super old knowledge of more 33+ years and also by misinterpreting the provisions of the existing Constitution of India tending to only mislead the community, rather than showing a right path or solution to the community seeking guidance from us.
Further, you probably forget that the Constitution has been divided in different sections/parts and the chapter of each part discusses matters pertaining only to matters related to that subject by not touching any other aspect. You can very well see that except the Articles 32 and 32A, all the Articles (131A,135,141,131,132,140,138,139) quoted by you discuss only about the "UNION JUDICIARY" to be applicable to ONLY the judiciary and not the public in general or business, etc. This aspect I have already mentioned in my last reply to Shri Kamal's post.
Now coming to Article 32, this relates to "REMEDIES for enforcement of rights" of the individual citizens. Needless to emphasize, remedies on arising of any dispute are sought by some one who is aggrieved, but cannot be assumed unauthorisedly by him. The Article very clearly states about the RIGHT TO MOVE SUPREME COURT BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, not by presuming that the Supreme Court should itself presume about any dispute existing between individual to individual and start automatically moving itself, unless some one files a petition about the nature of dispute with some other party.
Article 32A, relating to Constitutional validity of State Laws, which was only deleted more than 33 years back, but also has nothing to do with the Central relating to EPFO.
I wonder, how as a super moderator you believe that the P&H judgment of July 2011 also has the same value as that of the Supreme Court when you very well know that the EPFO can still file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the orders under the provisions of Article 133 (as avoided quoting in your post) to get that quashed. Moreover, there was no direction of the P&H High Court for the EPFO to implement their judgment to the cases of lakhs of the contributing organisations.
You have also avoided to quote Article 142 of the Constitution along with other Articles in your reply. Probably, you have NOT tried to interpret the same where it clearly states that the Supreme Court has also to make such ORDER and prescribe manner to make any decree or order enforceable under any law made by the parliament and UNTIL provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by ORDER prescribe.
The Article, thus clearly emphasises on specific order by the Supreme Court for general application that too only up till the President of India makes any specific order and prescribes the manner in that respect. BUT NOT in any individual case to be implemented in general manner merely on presumption basis and without any specific authority issued either by the Supreme Court or the President of India. Here in this case the irony is that the order, itself, does not relate to the Supreme Court, nor even the High Court, what to say of Supreme Court has issued any specific orders for applying the same in general to all the organisations, other than the G4S Security Services, in whose case the judgment has been delivered by the P&H High Court.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Dingra,
I cannot teach you something, no matter how right it is, if you yourself don't wish to learn. I am giving you a link; please go through the same.
Supreme Court of India - Jurisdiction
Welcome to Indian Courts
About the repealed post: it has been put there for you to search the reason and process behind the repeal so that you get the idea of how things have evolved in the judiciary over a period of time.
Mr. Dingra, please don't mind. I have seen many posts that you have made on various websites of which you are a member, and everywhere I have noticed that you tend to get personal in a professional debate and start making personal remarks. Kindly understand the fact that you cannot always be right everywhere. I do not wish to get down and dirty by arguing and making personal remarks on members.
I wish to maintain the decorum of the forum; hence, I do not wish to indulge in further arguments on the above topic with you.
And I suggest caution that the law should be understood in totality and not on a section or article basis.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I cannot teach you something, no matter how right it is, if you yourself don't wish to learn. I am giving you a link; please go through the same.
Supreme Court of India - Jurisdiction
Welcome to Indian Courts
About the repealed post: it has been put there for you to search the reason and process behind the repeal so that you get the idea of how things have evolved in the judiciary over a period of time.
Mr. Dingra, please don't mind. I have seen many posts that you have made on various websites of which you are a member, and everywhere I have noticed that you tend to get personal in a professional debate and start making personal remarks. Kindly understand the fact that you cannot always be right everywhere. I do not wish to get down and dirty by arguing and making personal remarks on members.
I wish to maintain the decorum of the forum; hence, I do not wish to indulge in further arguments on the above topic with you.
And I suggest caution that the law should be understood in totality and not on a section or article basis.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I am sorry to say that I would not like to reply to your inputs any further on this thread. The reason being, you have now made it a prestige issue and are trying to justify and prove your views, which is taking the topic off track. Your belief that only what you said is correct is wrong and not acceptable to me.
Repeating the words "wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal" a hundred times will not give you a certificate that what you said is correct. Moreover, you certainly cannot impose your views on the readers. I would only say that your interpretation of the words of the Constitution is different from mine, and my interpretation of Article 141 is based on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Patnaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry to say that I would not like to reply to your inputs any further on this thread. The reason being, you have now made it a prestige issue and are trying to justify and prove your views, which is taking the topic off track. Your belief that only what you said is correct is wrong and not acceptable to me.
Repeating the words "wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal" a hundred times will not give you a certificate that what you said is correct. Moreover, you certainly cannot impose your views on the readers. I would only say that your interpretation of the words of the Constitution is different from mine, and my interpretation of Article 141 is based on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Patnaik, Justice S.N. Phukan, and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Octavious,
Of course, nobody can teach any person, unless he has the desire to understand the reality by shunning his wrong concept.
But, I wonder, what did you want to convey by pasting link about "jurisdiction of Supreme Court", while I never raised any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Not only that, the site does not refute in anyway my own conviction. That also does not confirm your views and even does not stress upon the judgments of the High Court to have wider application unless ordered to be made so. So, I am unable to understand, how the site has any connection with my last reply.
Still further, the link refers to Article 133 also, which I quoted in my last reply, as you avoided to quote while referring other articles. That itself confirms my conviction to be true.
Not only that, when I tried to make you aware of the repealed Articles, you have come forward with your after-thought that "the repealed post has been put there for you to search the reason, and process behind the repeal, so that you get the idea how things have evolved in judiciary over a period of time," which you never intended in your original post. By such types of statements, you cannot falsify the realities. CAN YOU JUST MAKE ME UNDERSTAND WHAT I, YOU, OR THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD DERIVE BENEFIT FROM SEARCH OF THE REASON AFTER 33 YEARS OF THE REPEAL OF THE ARTICLES 33? Had you known any reason behind their repeal, you were welcome to quote not only for my knowledge but also for the benefit of the members of the community in general. Naturally, the said articles did not contain anything which could prove that the High Court Judgments or the Supreme Court judgments should not be implemented.
To be very frank, had you wished to maintain decorum of the forum, you as a super moderator could well have made a proper research before declaring my statement as fallacies, rather than trying to declare my views as fallacies, on which , where I have already offered myself to face any court case from your side to prove me wrong.
You may also like to review your own earlier statement “discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” I merely discussed on the Articles quoted by you, as your contentions were being side-tracked to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the applicability of the P&H High Court judgment on split up of wages for PF. About argument, what is your opinion about the advocates of both sides, making arguments to attract the attention of the judges, right from the lowest court to the Supreme Court and the argument of one side is accepted even by the Supreme Court. Do both the sides exchange their ignorance, while even the Supreme Court agrees on the ignorance as his knowledge and base its judgment on that? I BELIEVE, EVEN DISCUSSION SOMETIMES EXCHANGES MERE IGNORANCE, WHILE ARGUMENT MAKES THE OTHER FELLOWS UNDERSTAND HIS VIEW POINT LEADING TO ENHNACEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
About your allegation "that you tend to get personal in a professional debate, and start making personal remarks," it is nothing except your bias and misunderstanding about me. Contrarily, your own post conveys that sense of making personal remarks, while you stated in your yesterday's post, "You tend to commit fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organizations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organizations decides to apply uniformly to all the organization."
I wish, by virtue of being super moderator and senior member, you could have shown your super knowledge, rather than any bias after properly interpreting the legal and constitutional requirements.
Anyway, thanks for your caution. BUT I know, I do not try to reply unless I understand the the implication of the relevant law. I also admit mistake wherever I am wrong.
However, if you feel some irritation on my replies in the CiteHR, I can avoid posting my replies in CiteHR. Of course, I have already reduced my activity at CiteHR due to the fact that some members don't relish my pointing out towards wrong information, where they expect me merely to endorse their opinions, irrespective of the fact how wrong that be.
Regards
PS Dhingra
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, nobody can teach any person, unless he has the desire to understand the reality by shunning his wrong concept.
But, I wonder, what did you want to convey by pasting link about "jurisdiction of Supreme Court", while I never raised any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Not only that, the site does not refute in anyway my own conviction. That also does not confirm your views and even does not stress upon the judgments of the High Court to have wider application unless ordered to be made so. So, I am unable to understand, how the site has any connection with my last reply.
Still further, the link refers to Article 133 also, which I quoted in my last reply, as you avoided to quote while referring other articles. That itself confirms my conviction to be true.
Not only that, when I tried to make you aware of the repealed Articles, you have come forward with your after-thought that "the repealed post has been put there for you to search the reason, and process behind the repeal, so that you get the idea how things have evolved in judiciary over a period of time," which you never intended in your original post. By such types of statements, you cannot falsify the realities. CAN YOU JUST MAKE ME UNDERSTAND WHAT I, YOU, OR THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD DERIVE BENEFIT FROM SEARCH OF THE REASON AFTER 33 YEARS OF THE REPEAL OF THE ARTICLES 33? Had you known any reason behind their repeal, you were welcome to quote not only for my knowledge but also for the benefit of the members of the community in general. Naturally, the said articles did not contain anything which could prove that the High Court Judgments or the Supreme Court judgments should not be implemented.
To be very frank, had you wished to maintain decorum of the forum, you as a super moderator could well have made a proper research before declaring my statement as fallacies, rather than trying to declare my views as fallacies, on which , where I have already offered myself to face any court case from your side to prove me wrong.
You may also like to review your own earlier statement “discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” I merely discussed on the Articles quoted by you, as your contentions were being side-tracked to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the applicability of the P&H High Court judgment on split up of wages for PF. About argument, what is your opinion about the advocates of both sides, making arguments to attract the attention of the judges, right from the lowest court to the Supreme Court and the argument of one side is accepted even by the Supreme Court. Do both the sides exchange their ignorance, while even the Supreme Court agrees on the ignorance as his knowledge and base its judgment on that? I BELIEVE, EVEN DISCUSSION SOMETIMES EXCHANGES MERE IGNORANCE, WHILE ARGUMENT MAKES THE OTHER FELLOWS UNDERSTAND HIS VIEW POINT LEADING TO ENHNACEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
About your allegation "that you tend to get personal in a professional debate, and start making personal remarks," it is nothing except your bias and misunderstanding about me. Contrarily, your own post conveys that sense of making personal remarks, while you stated in your yesterday's post, "You tend to commit fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organizations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organizations decides to apply uniformly to all the organization."
I wish, by virtue of being super moderator and senior member, you could have shown your super knowledge, rather than any bias after properly interpreting the legal and constitutional requirements.
Anyway, thanks for your caution. BUT I know, I do not try to reply unless I understand the the implication of the relevant law. I also admit mistake wherever I am wrong.
However, if you feel some irritation on my replies in the CiteHR, I can avoid posting my replies in CiteHR. Of course, I have already reduced my activity at CiteHR due to the fact that some members don't relish my pointing out towards wrong information, where they expect me merely to endorse their opinions, irrespective of the fact how wrong that be.
Regards
PS Dhingra
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kamal,
Good decision you have made. I suggest that we should not waste bandwidth and time on things of which the outcome would be negative.
As a matter of principle, it's always better not to teach a person anything who has lost his/her learning curve.
Some people have that sense of seniority, and then they get confused, associating that feeling of seniority with superiority. Subsequently, they start calling themselves superior to others. Believe me, at this stage, no person can convince these individuals with a fake superiority complex that they are wrong and need to learn and understand the new and existing truth.
Being a Super Moderator confirms more responsibility and less privilege, hence one must ignore certain situations that can be easily confronted by an individual. However, you have shown extraordinary resilience and maturity by avoiding unnecessary arguments, proving superiority beyond realms of doubt.
Sometimes, some things are beneath contempt; hence, it's always better to ignore such things.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good decision you have made. I suggest that we should not waste bandwidth and time on things of which the outcome would be negative.
As a matter of principle, it's always better not to teach a person anything who has lost his/her learning curve.
Some people have that sense of seniority, and then they get confused, associating that feeling of seniority with superiority. Subsequently, they start calling themselves superior to others. Believe me, at this stage, no person can convince these individuals with a fake superiority complex that they are wrong and need to learn and understand the new and existing truth.
Being a Super Moderator confirms more responsibility and less privilege, hence one must ignore certain situations that can be easily confronted by an individual. However, you have shown extraordinary resilience and maturity by avoiding unnecessary arguments, proving superiority beyond realms of doubt.
Sometimes, some things are beneath contempt; hence, it's always better to ignore such things.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Octavious,
I am neither a senior member nor a moderator (let alone a super moderator). So, your contention in the 3rd paragraph of your post has no relevance for me. I can only add that when someone fails in logic, they tend to start uttering such words or casting aspersions on others, instead of presenting any facts contrary to the points being made for consideration by him and the audience.
Just to clarify, am I gaining anything by sharing my knowledge free of charge and spending my time responding to your views? As I have mentioned earlier, if my opinions bother you or challenge your position significantly, feel free to suggest that I cease writing on CiteHR. Please note, CiteHR does not provide any compensation to me. You also have the option to prohibit my contributions as a super moderator if you wish.
However, I cannot help it if individuals like yourself, even in a super moderator role, do not value the rationality of perspectives and advice.
I will not object if you and Mr. Kamal persist in offering incorrect advice to people or if various organizations' managements choose to follow such guidance, as it does not affect me.
WITH BEST WISHES.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am neither a senior member nor a moderator (let alone a super moderator). So, your contention in the 3rd paragraph of your post has no relevance for me. I can only add that when someone fails in logic, they tend to start uttering such words or casting aspersions on others, instead of presenting any facts contrary to the points being made for consideration by him and the audience.
Just to clarify, am I gaining anything by sharing my knowledge free of charge and spending my time responding to your views? As I have mentioned earlier, if my opinions bother you or challenge your position significantly, feel free to suggest that I cease writing on CiteHR. Please note, CiteHR does not provide any compensation to me. You also have the option to prohibit my contributions as a super moderator if you wish.
However, I cannot help it if individuals like yourself, even in a super moderator role, do not value the rationality of perspectives and advice.
I will not object if you and Mr. Kamal persist in offering incorrect advice to people or if various organizations' managements choose to follow such guidance, as it does not affect me.
WITH BEST WISHES.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
dear friends,
Please see the communication we received w.r.t. to contribution of PF on allowances.
The first bench of the Madras High Court has stayed the order of a Single Judge passed in The Management of Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram and Others vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Chennai, 2011 LLR 876, holding that the employees’ provident fund contributions were payable on various allowances like Conveyance Allowance, Education Allowance, Special Allowances, Food Concessions, Medical Allowance, Special Holidays, Night Shift Incentive and City Compensatory Allowance. The stay order was passed in the presence of the counsel for Provident Fund Department. No next date has been fixed for final hearing of the appeal.
The Review Petitions before Madhya Pradesh High Court against the orders in Montage Enterprises, 2011 LLR 867 & Surya Roshini Ltd. etc., 2011 LLR 568 etc. pertaining to various allowances are fixed for 14th October, 2011.
Labour Law Reporter
A-43, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110 024
Ph. 011-29830000, 011-29840000, Fax No. 011-41727788
E-mail : labourlawreporter@vsnl.net <link updated to site home> ( Search On Cite | Search On Google ) Website : www.labourlawreporter.net
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please see the communication we received w.r.t. to contribution of PF on allowances.
PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ON ALLOWANCES
The Review Petitions before Madhya Pradesh High Court against the orders in Montage Enterprises, 2011 LLR 867 & Surya Roshini Ltd. etc., 2011 LLR 568 etc. pertaining to various allowances are fixed for 14th October, 2011.
Labour Law Reporter
A-43, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110 024
Ph. 011-29830000, 011-29840000, Fax No. 011-41727788
E-mail : labourlawreporter@vsnl.net <link updated to site home> ( Search On Cite | Search On Google ) Website : www.labourlawreporter.net
Balaji
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
The situation is as below:
Our registered hospital address is in Chennai, where we have an EPF code, and our branch hospital is commencing in Pune, Maharashtra. We have around 40 staff at the Pune hospital, and all are going to be EPF members. As per norms, PF deduction is on basic + DA. My question is which minimum wage is to be considered for this, either of Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra.
Please help me out and also let me know what is the CORRECT CURRENT MINIMUM BASIC WAGE and DA for hospitals in Maharashtra, as I found different figures on various websites.
Thank you in advance.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The situation is as below:
Our registered hospital address is in Chennai, where we have an EPF code, and our branch hospital is commencing in Pune, Maharashtra. We have around 40 staff at the Pune hospital, and all are going to be EPF members. As per norms, PF deduction is on basic + DA. My question is which minimum wage is to be considered for this, either of Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra.
Please help me out and also let me know what is the CORRECT CURRENT MINIMUM BASIC WAGE and DA for hospitals in Maharashtra, as I found different figures on various websites.
Thank you in advance.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Shrinisar,
The minimum wages for Pune employees should be considered as per the statutes of Maharashtra. Please check the official notification through any labor consultant of Maharashtra for details on minimum wages in Maharashtra.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The minimum wages for Pune employees should be considered as per the statutes of Maharashtra. Please check the official notification through any labor consultant of Maharashtra for details on minimum wages in Maharashtra.
Regards,
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends
Greetings!
Do any of you have the copy of the stay order given by the Madras High court on writ petitions filed by The Management of Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram and Others vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Chennai, 2011 on PF –Minimum wages issue. If you have could you please share.
subsequent to that any circular made by the Regional Provident fund commissionaire( Legal/Compliance) saying not to insist till the stay order is vacated.
Thanks & Regards
K.VICTOR
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings!
Do any of you have the copy of the stay order given by the Madras High court on writ petitions filed by The Management of Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram and Others vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Chennai, 2011 on PF –Minimum wages issue. If you have could you please share.
subsequent to that any circular made by the Regional Provident fund commissionaire( Legal/Compliance) saying not to insist till the stay order is vacated.
Thanks & Regards
K.VICTOR
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Balaji,
Greetings for the day.
The assumption laid by you and the copy of the judgment forwarded by you, it must be noted that the circular issued by EPFO not to split the minimum wage is in the context of the Supreme Court judgment. How can it be overruled by a high court is really a matter of worry.
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings for the day.
The assumption laid by you and the copy of the judgment forwarded by you, it must be noted that the circular issued by EPFO not to split the minimum wage is in the context of the Supreme Court judgment. How can it be overruled by a high court is really a matter of worry.
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Naresh No, you cannot split minimum wages for PF contribution Thanks & Regards Hema
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
Regarding employers splitting up minimum wages to reduce PF liability, I personally feel that it is unethical irrespective of what the current law says. If the current law allows such a thing, then it is more of a loophole instead of the original intention, I feel. In our organization (a private hospital), we don't have such a practice.
However, looking at the circular from EPFO, I am confused about one thing. Their main intention seems to be that PF contributions should be made at least on the "Minimum Wage." Further, they explain the concept of "Basic Wage" and say that it should not be less than the former.
So, are they saying that it is illegal/unethical even if "Basic + DA + other components eligible for PF" matches the "Minimum Wage"?
Regards,
Krishna
Note: I found this forum extremely useful and vibrant; hence, I joined as a new member. Also, I am new to management and not an expert in law; pardon my ignorance on some aspects. I would like to humbly ask my questions with experts here and voice my opinion. If my posts are in violation of the spirit of the forum, I request you to guide me.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regarding employers splitting up minimum wages to reduce PF liability, I personally feel that it is unethical irrespective of what the current law says. If the current law allows such a thing, then it is more of a loophole instead of the original intention, I feel. In our organization (a private hospital), we don't have such a practice.
However, looking at the circular from EPFO, I am confused about one thing. Their main intention seems to be that PF contributions should be made at least on the "Minimum Wage." Further, they explain the concept of "Basic Wage" and say that it should not be less than the former.
So, are they saying that it is illegal/unethical even if "Basic + DA + other components eligible for PF" matches the "Minimum Wage"?
Regards,
Krishna
Note: I found this forum extremely useful and vibrant; hence, I joined as a new member. Also, I am new to management and not an expert in law; pardon my ignorance on some aspects. I would like to humbly ask my questions with experts here and voice my opinion. If my posts are in violation of the spirit of the forum, I request you to guide me.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear sir,
Due to different rates of EPF, we are facing difficulties in deciding the accurate EPF contribution of employees. It would be appreciated if clarification could be given as to whether the EPF is applicable after the revision of rates to Rs. 7020/-. If applicable, kindly confirm whether it is to be calculated on Rs. 6500/- or Rs. 7020/-.
Kindly attach any circular/notification related to this matter. An early reply in this matter is requested.
Thanking you.
Sunil kr HR
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Due to different rates of EPF, we are facing difficulties in deciding the accurate EPF contribution of employees. It would be appreciated if clarification could be given as to whether the EPF is applicable after the revision of rates to Rs. 7020/-. If applicable, kindly confirm whether it is to be calculated on Rs. 6500/- or Rs. 7020/-.
Kindly attach any circular/notification related to this matter. An early reply in this matter is requested.
Thanking you.
Sunil kr HR
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Brijesh Saxena,
As you are well aware, we can't split the minimum wage in Gurgaon because the Gurgaon commissioner has issued a notification stating that we can't split minimum wages. Therefore, we kindly request you to provide me with the soft copy of the said notification to my email address ankushsharma33@gmail.com.
Thanks & Regards,
Ankush Sharma
+919817618276
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As you are well aware, we can't split the minimum wage in Gurgaon because the Gurgaon commissioner has issued a notification stating that we can't split minimum wages. Therefore, we kindly request you to provide me with the soft copy of the said notification to my email address ankushsharma33@gmail.com.
Thanks & Regards,
Ankush Sharma
+919817618276
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
however the SC judgement stands final. So, you can split minimum wages for PF contribution. Even PF commissioner opposes it cannot stand before SC judgement
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
Greetings for the day.
Earlier, we have quoted that minimum wages can't be split for the PF purpose, but the matter is sub judice in the Supreme Court of India, so it can be split until further order. Notification enclosed for reference.
Thanks and regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings for the day.
Earlier, we have quoted that minimum wages can't be split for the PF purpose, but the matter is sub judice in the Supreme Court of India, so it can be split until further order. Notification enclosed for reference.
Thanks and regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
There has been a lot of discussion on the matter of splitting of MW for PF contribution. In this connection, please find attached a copy of the SC judgment in Airfreight Ltd v State of Karnataka, which states that wages have to be as per Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act. Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act clearly mentions that wages include House Rent Allowance. Therefore, it is legal and safer to pay MW - consisting of Basic, Dearness Allowance, and HRA.
Moreover, the PF Appellate Tribunal recently held that MW could be split and paid.
N. Nataraajhan
Sakthi Management Services
Hp: +91 94835 17402
Email: natraj@sakthimanagement.com
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There has been a lot of discussion on the matter of splitting of MW for PF contribution. In this connection, please find attached a copy of the SC judgment in Airfreight Ltd v State of Karnataka, which states that wages have to be as per Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act. Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act clearly mentions that wages include House Rent Allowance. Therefore, it is legal and safer to pay MW - consisting of Basic, Dearness Allowance, and HRA.
Moreover, the PF Appellate Tribunal recently held that MW could be split and paid.
N. Nataraajhan
Sakthi Management Services
Hp: +91 94835 17402
Email: natraj@sakthimanagement.com
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Member, Please advise can be split minimum wages in Delhi for the PF contribution. Thanks & Regards Mayuri
From India, Faridabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Faridabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The controversy shrouding in splitting minimum wages into basic pay, etc., for the purpose of EPF contribution has finally been put to rest with the advent of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. The judgment of the SC is appended below:
P Senthilkumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284 OF 2013
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
ORDER
The appellant-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th July 2011, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in an intra-Court Appeal, which was directed against the order dated 01st February 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had impugned the order dated 15th June 2009, passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, while determining the issue raised by the respondents regarding the liability of the Management under the provisions of Section 7A of the EPF Act. The stand of the appellant is that for the purposes of determining its contribution towards provident fund, the respondent no. 1 was wrongly splitting the wage structure of the employees and treating the reduced wage as the basic wage to the detriment of the employees, thereby evading its liability to contribute the correct amount towards provident fund. The aforesaid stand taken by the appellant has been turned down by the Appellate Tribunal as also by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that for the purposes of determining the basic wage under the EPF Act, reference must be made to the definition of the expression 'minimum rate of wages' under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This aspect has been considered in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and turned down holding that there was no compulsion to hold the definition of 'basic wage' to be equated with the definition of 'minimum wage' under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
In our opinion, once the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining the words 'basic wage' (under Section 2b), then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect the Court to have traveled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislature.
It is also pertinent to note that a similar issue had come up for consideration in the order dated 23rd May 2002, passed by the APFC under Section 7A of the EPF Act, that was duly accepted by the appellant department as the said order was not taken in appeal.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless. There shall be no orders as to costs.
J. (HIMA KOHLI)
J. (RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI; AUGUST 17, 2023.
PS C.A. NO. 9284 OF 2013 ITEM NO. 104 COURT NO. 11 SECTION IV SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284/2013 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) (IA NO. 104606/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
Date: 17-08-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Adv. Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Adv. Mr. Sahas Bhasin, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Harvinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Monga, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Jalan, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
P Senthilkumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284 OF 2013
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
ORDER
The appellant-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th July 2011, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in an intra-Court Appeal, which was directed against the order dated 01st February 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had impugned the order dated 15th June 2009, passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, while determining the issue raised by the respondents regarding the liability of the Management under the provisions of Section 7A of the EPF Act. The stand of the appellant is that for the purposes of determining its contribution towards provident fund, the respondent no. 1 was wrongly splitting the wage structure of the employees and treating the reduced wage as the basic wage to the detriment of the employees, thereby evading its liability to contribute the correct amount towards provident fund. The aforesaid stand taken by the appellant has been turned down by the Appellate Tribunal as also by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that for the purposes of determining the basic wage under the EPF Act, reference must be made to the definition of the expression 'minimum rate of wages' under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This aspect has been considered in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and turned down holding that there was no compulsion to hold the definition of 'basic wage' to be equated with the definition of 'minimum wage' under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
In our opinion, once the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining the words 'basic wage' (under Section 2b), then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect the Court to have traveled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislature.
It is also pertinent to note that a similar issue had come up for consideration in the order dated 23rd May 2002, passed by the APFC under Section 7A of the EPF Act, that was duly accepted by the appellant department as the said order was not taken in appeal.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless. There shall be no orders as to costs.
J. (HIMA KOHLI)
J. (RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI; AUGUST 17, 2023.
PS C.A. NO. 9284 OF 2013 ITEM NO. 104 COURT NO. 11 SECTION IV SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284/2013 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) (IA NO. 104606/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
Date: 17-08-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Adv. Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Adv. Mr. Sahas Bhasin, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Harvinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Monga, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Jalan, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)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.
Splitting of Minimum Wages for the purpose of PF contribution not permissible.doc x
EPF-Circular-da ted-23-May-2011 -Splitting-of-M inimum-Wages-fo r-the-Purpose-o f-PF-Contributi on-Not.pdf