Dear All
Greetings
Please find enclosed the SCI Order dated 13-07-2012 for SLP(C) No. 8781-8782 /2012 (From the judgement and order dated 24-03-2011 in WPC No. 1891/2011 and dated 22-11-2011 in RP No. 117/2011 of The HIGH COURT of M.P. AT GWALIOR.
Regards
Mikky Vij
From India, New Delhi
30Greetings
Please find enclosed the SCI Order dated 13-07-2012 for SLP(C) No. 8781-8782 /2012 (From the judgement and order dated 24-03-2011 in WPC No. 1891/2011 and dated 22-11-2011 in RP No. 117/2011 of The HIGH COURT of M.P. AT GWALIOR.
Regards
Mikky Vij
From India, New Delhi
Thank you Mr. Mikky Vij for sharing the SC order Judgement copy. What was the outcome of this case. Whether the bifurcation of minimum wages is authorised or not. Is it possible to pay the PF only for the Basic Wages part on Minimum Wages or we have to pay for the VDA also.
The clarification in this regard will help our members.
From India, Kumbakonam
The clarification in this regard will help our members.
From India, Kumbakonam
It may be recollected that in a Review Petition by Surya Roshni Limited vs. Employees’ Provident Fund and Another, 2012 LLR 42, Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Section 2(b) and 6 of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act define basic wages and HRA, overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance are not covered in the definition of basic wages but when special allowance, dearness allowance, conveyance allowance and other allowances are paid universally to all the employees, they would be treated as part and parcel of basic wages.
A special leave petition to appeal, as filed, came up for hearing on 13.7.2012, in which the above stay order was passed by Supreme Court. The case is still pending for final judgement.
Thanks
From India, Malappuram
A special leave petition to appeal, as filed, came up for hearing on 13.7.2012, in which the above stay order was passed by Supreme Court. The case is still pending for final judgement.
Thanks
From India, Malappuram
The employer had not stated/pleaded before the court that who the contributions paid and the routine inspecting authorities had not brought the disallowed allowances to the notice of the employer before the proceedings were initiated. Also the Coverage Memos issued at the time of providing the registration number doesnot contain the definition of wages (Basic) clearly. This are the suppression of informations by authorities.
regards
law anand
From India, Chennai
regards
law anand
From India, Chennai
this is the latest notification by the EPF authorities on this issue, link;
Circular dated 30 November 2012 of EPFO Department on Inclusion of Allowances in Wages for PF Contribution
From India, Chennai
Circular dated 30 November 2012 of EPFO Department on Inclusion of Allowances in Wages for PF Contribution
From India, Chennai
Dear all,
Greetings for the day,
Enclosing the latest updation of supreme court in the matter of surya roshni vs epfo for the reference. Please go through it.
Thanks & Regards,
From,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Greetings for the day,
Enclosing the latest updation of supreme court in the matter of surya roshni vs epfo for the reference. Please go through it.
Thanks & Regards,
From,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Khushboo vs Kanniammal - Supreme Court Judgment - A Perspective.doc
LTA Order of Supreme Court.pdf