Dear Seniors,
I want to know if it is permissible to reduce the HRA amount when restructuring the salary. We are not going to reduce employees' total gross salary, but the salary restructure is being done as per the Code of Wages Act.
Please guide...
From Japan, Osaka
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1I want to know if it is permissible to reduce the HRA amount when restructuring the salary. We are not going to reduce employees' total gross salary, but the salary restructure is being done as per the Code of Wages Act.
Please guide...
From Japan, Osaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Padmakar,
The definition of "Wages" under the new wage code and also in other codes (same definition everywhere) should be on the following basis:
1. Identify all cash components payable to any employee - monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly except gratuity, retrenchment benefit, and including non-payable amounts - value of house accommodation, light, water, medical, etc., if any provided by the employer at free of cost as an exception.
2. 50% of the above value will be Basic and DA.
3. The rest 50% will be divided amongst monthly allowances, yearly items, company's contribution to PF, etc.
Thanks and regards,
S K Bandyopadhyay (WB, Howrah)
CEO-USD HR Solutions
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The definition of "Wages" under the new wage code and also in other codes (same definition everywhere) should be on the following basis:
1. Identify all cash components payable to any employee - monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly except gratuity, retrenchment benefit, and including non-payable amounts - value of house accommodation, light, water, medical, etc., if any provided by the employer at free of cost as an exception.
2. 50% of the above value will be Basic and DA.
3. The rest 50% will be divided amongst monthly allowances, yearly items, company's contribution to PF, etc.
Thanks and regards,
S K Bandyopadhyay (WB, Howrah)
CEO-USD HR Solutions
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Padmakar,
Regarding the interpretation of the term "wages" as defined under Section 2(y) of the Code on Wages, 2019 for its application purpose of maintaining the proportionality between the included components and the excluded components, my learned friend Mr. S.K. Bandyopadhyay and I have consistently held different perceptions right from the very beginning whenever we answer questions similar to the one raised in this thread.
Simply put, my point is that only the components of the wages for such comparative discussions should be those payable within the "wage period" prescribed under Section 16 of the Code, which is limited to one month. All other excluded components mentioned in the definition, payable in different periodicities like bi-monthly (i.e., once in two months), quarterly, half-yearly, or annually depending either on the terms of the contract of employment or under the provision of any special law applicable to the payment of such a component, should be left out. They are simply perks or fringe benefits outside the regular wages, and their inclusion for the purpose of proportionality would arise only when they are shown and actually paid in any periodicity fixed under Section 16. It is to be noted that the components mentioned from clause (a) to clause (k) are not illustrative but exhaustive. If we analyze the CTC structures currently adopted by many employers, we can find many other items like LTC, annual medical allowance, or payment of premium to medical insurance to the employee and his family, etc.
On the other hand, my learned friend's contention is that all the payouts should be indiscriminately calculated on a yearly basis, and then the proportionality should be determined for the purposes of the Code.
Of course, neither of us has the authority to say which view is correct as of now unless and until a Judicial Pronouncement comes in this regard in the future.
Besides, coming to the question of restructuring in the wake of the implementation of the Code on Wages, 2019, I feel that it is not so necessary. The reason is that when your existing wage structure allows for any mismatch in terms of proportionality between the inclusive and excluded components, the calculation for all statutory purposes would automatically be restored to the parity of proportions. However, if you want to be judicious, you can adopt either of the above methods as per your own conviction. But a reduction in the existing allowances for the purpose of restructuring would eventually become a contentious issue as it forms part of the subject matters of Schedule IV read with Section 9-A of the IDA, 1947 in the case of workmen and in other cases would necessitate the formation of a new contract of employment.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regarding the interpretation of the term "wages" as defined under Section 2(y) of the Code on Wages, 2019 for its application purpose of maintaining the proportionality between the included components and the excluded components, my learned friend Mr. S.K. Bandyopadhyay and I have consistently held different perceptions right from the very beginning whenever we answer questions similar to the one raised in this thread.
Simply put, my point is that only the components of the wages for such comparative discussions should be those payable within the "wage period" prescribed under Section 16 of the Code, which is limited to one month. All other excluded components mentioned in the definition, payable in different periodicities like bi-monthly (i.e., once in two months), quarterly, half-yearly, or annually depending either on the terms of the contract of employment or under the provision of any special law applicable to the payment of such a component, should be left out. They are simply perks or fringe benefits outside the regular wages, and their inclusion for the purpose of proportionality would arise only when they are shown and actually paid in any periodicity fixed under Section 16. It is to be noted that the components mentioned from clause (a) to clause (k) are not illustrative but exhaustive. If we analyze the CTC structures currently adopted by many employers, we can find many other items like LTC, annual medical allowance, or payment of premium to medical insurance to the employee and his family, etc.
On the other hand, my learned friend's contention is that all the payouts should be indiscriminately calculated on a yearly basis, and then the proportionality should be determined for the purposes of the Code.
Of course, neither of us has the authority to say which view is correct as of now unless and until a Judicial Pronouncement comes in this regard in the future.
Besides, coming to the question of restructuring in the wake of the implementation of the Code on Wages, 2019, I feel that it is not so necessary. The reason is that when your existing wage structure allows for any mismatch in terms of proportionality between the inclusive and excluded components, the calculation for all statutory purposes would automatically be restored to the parity of proportions. However, if you want to be judicious, you can adopt either of the above methods as per your own conviction. But a reduction in the existing allowances for the purpose of restructuring would eventually become a contentious issue as it forms part of the subject matters of Schedule IV read with Section 9-A of the IDA, 1947 in the case of workmen and in other cases would necessitate the formation of a new contract of employment.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
Taxes Restructure CTC NPS.pdf