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)
1From 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.