Dear All, What are your views and strategy for the recent judgement of Supreme Court for including of Allowances for PF Contribution. Regards, Kirti
From India, Jammu
Hon'ble SC Order/Ruling/Judgement are to be "treated" as Laws Legisted upon by the Parliamen & Legistative Assemblies as per Our Constitution Article 141, hence to be complied with/Obeyed, properly & faithfully till an Amendment to the contrary is brought out after due process of Law-making.
Despite the Fact ours is a Socialist Republic and our Bhartiya Samvidhan has Provisions for Adopting the Directive Principles of State Policy as Beacon Light, we Working for Salary-Class, as it were, have No Effective Provisions for Safe & Finacially- Secure Post-Retirement ( beyound 60 years of Age) Life with Adequate Subsistence to survive with Dignity/ Honour, which Dream ought to be fulfilled Now.
In the circumstance and in this context, Whatever the Wage-Earners Save for Providence thru PF Instrument is a Blissful Experience.
Aforesaid is Kritarth Team's Opinion/View of the matter.
Kritarth Team, March 6, 2019

From India, Delhi
Dear Kirti Rawat
May please see mu post on the same.
However again for your benefit I will brief as under.
The Crux is...don't get confused by title of "allowance", but consider the type of allowance. i.e. form where it flows, how it is linked, who all receive it and when and how does it is being paid?
Is it a universal (paid to all) flat (non variable from person to person), permanent, kind of regular (mandatory), ordinary and necessary component of wages?
If yes, it is part of standard wages hence it has to be considered as part of Basic wages.
The term Basic wages if analysed in detailed , implies that the wages which are standard, universal, necessary and ordinarily paid.
If the current Basic wage is exceeding Rs. 15,000/- and PF is already being deducted on this amount there is no further liability to include allowances even if applicable as per set precedence of the law through judgement on Bridge & roof and Manipal academy and again ratified in current judgement in six different appeals.
The larger implication could be in terms of contract labors, as large number of them are likely to be below the ceiling of Rs. 15,000/- and there could be more possibilities of subterfuge and camouflaging.
Principal Employers may requires to look into the matter to ensure contractors engaged by them do comply with the applicable principles with respect to interpretation of the term "Basic Wage" and do contribute/deduct the PF amount accordingly.
EPFO may come with some clarification or instructions in this regard as to address emerged anxiety and confusion among member employer. There is no need to make haste, but proceed with having due diligence and preoccupations considering all possible implications.
Shailesh Parikh
99 98 97 10 65
Vadodara

From India, Mumbai
Thanks You Kritarth Team and Shailesh Parikh.
Please suggest if the mentioned breakup with be correct :
Basic 8200 Basic 9334
HRA 4100 HRA 4667
Special Allowance 1700 Special Allowance 0
Gross 14000 Gross 14001
PF 984 PF 1120

From India, Jammu
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.





Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2024 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.