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Not only that, when I tried to make you aware of the repealed Articles, you have come forward with your after-thought that "the repealed post has been put there for you to search the reason, and process behind the repeal, so that you get the idea how things have evolved in judiciary over a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)
394Of 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)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.