Dear All,
The Madhya Pradesh high court’s ruling that employee benefits, such as house rent, conveyance and special allowances, should be taken into account while computing the employee provident fund contributions may soon be implemented all over the country.
EPFO – Head office has forwarded the judgement to all PF regional offices.
Please find attached the same your reference.
From India, Gurgaon
49The Madhya Pradesh high court’s ruling that employee benefits, such as house rent, conveyance and special allowances, should be taken into account while computing the employee provident fund contributions may soon be implemented all over the country.
EPFO – Head office has forwarded the judgement to all PF regional offices.
Please find attached the same your reference.
From India, Gurgaon
flooded with the inquiries as to what should be done for provident fund contribution in view of the recent rulings of Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Madras High Court, which have clubbed almost every allowance with basic wages/dearness allowance for deduction and deposit of provident fund contributions. The Provident Fund Authorities have leapt on it as if they have found the gold mines of El Dorado. Sluggish and lethargic otherwise; the authorities showed the remarkable agility and tearing hurry in sending the circulars in bulk for propagating the operative portions of the decisions forgetting the basic tenet of the legal system that those rulings have not attained the status of finality. This attitude of the authorities is nauseating; reflecting their impaired mentality towards the economic growth of the country.
However, we consider it our bounden duty to clarify the legal position (as gathered by the concerned advocates) which, as on today, is that:
1. * Review Petitions have been filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which would come up for hearing on 29th July, 2011.
2. * A Writ Appeal has also been filed in the High Court of Madras which is likely to come up for hearing on or around 8th August, 2011.
In view of pendency of the aforesaid Petitions, the judgments of the High Courts are not definitive. So wait and watch.
From India, Delhi
However, we consider it our bounden duty to clarify the legal position (as gathered by the concerned advocates) which, as on today, is that:
1. * Review Petitions have been filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) which would come up for hearing on 29th July, 2011.
2. * A Writ Appeal has also been filed in the High Court of Madras which is likely to come up for hearing on or around 8th August, 2011.
In view of pendency of the aforesaid Petitions, the judgments of the High Courts are not definitive. So wait and watch.
From India, Delhi
Dear mr Rameshpr, Can you pls give a feed back regarding the review petitions filed before MP HC (Gwalior Bench) which came up for hearing on 29th of July thanks & regards, R K Nair
From India, Aizawl
From India, Aizawl
I agree with mr Rameshpr, it is early to achieve conclusion since matter is under judiciary we can wait and watch only.
From India, Bhagalpur
From India, Bhagalpur
I think if PF makes such ammendments then it won't be fair....as it will reduce take home of employee too....it will be extra expendicture for oraganization....CII may not accept this amendment....they have to think 100times before taking such steps...Honourable MP high court has given such verdict because that employer has played with minimum wages which he spilted to varios compoenent of salary, resulting in less basic than standard & less contribution to PF.
For EX if According to Minimum wages in MP if Basic+DA=6000/- for that period & PF contribution should be made on this amount....but this employer splitted that 6000/- in Basic, HRA, Special Allowance which resulated in less amt of basic & less contribution to PF
From India, Mumbai
For EX if According to Minimum wages in MP if Basic+DA=6000/- for that period & PF contribution should be made on this amount....but this employer splitted that 6000/- in Basic, HRA, Special Allowance which resulated in less amt of basic & less contribution to PF
From India, Mumbai
Why you people talk about only these judgements? There is Punjab and Haryana High court given verdict that Minimum Wages can be split and there is nothing wrong in doing so.
What is the sanctitiy of this High Court judgment? PF authorities have adapted the judgment which is in their favour and they did not utter any word about the other judgment.
Everyone interprets the law in their own way. People who have power try to put pressure on others.
It is high time that ALL EMPLOYERS TOGETHER applied a memorandum to Government and only then there will be a solution for this.
Balaji
From India, Madras
What is the sanctitiy of this High Court judgment? PF authorities have adapted the judgment which is in their favour and they did not utter any word about the other judgment.
Everyone interprets the law in their own way. People who have power try to put pressure on others.
It is high time that ALL EMPLOYERS TOGETHER applied a memorandum to Government and only then there will be a solution for this.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Dear All,
Just to add to the discussion
It may be recollected that in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gurgaon Vs. G4S Security Services (India) Limited & Anr, 2011 LLR 316, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the provident fund contributions are not necessarily to be paid on the wages which are fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.
Being aggrieved, the EPFO filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 1139 of 2011 before the Division Bench challenging the order of learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar and the Hon’ble Justice A.K. Mittal, on 20.07.2011 dismissed the appeal.
Ashutosh
From India, Bangalore
Just to add to the discussion
It may be recollected that in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gurgaon Vs. G4S Security Services (India) Limited & Anr, 2011 LLR 316, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the provident fund contributions are not necessarily to be paid on the wages which are fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.
Being aggrieved, the EPFO filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 1139 of 2011 before the Division Bench challenging the order of learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar and the Hon’ble Justice A.K. Mittal, on 20.07.2011 dismissed the appeal.
Ashutosh
From India, Bangalore
Dear Ashutosh Yadav,
Thank you very much for valuable sharing.
Regards.
Keshav Korgaonkar
http://www.shantadurgaent.com,Welcome To Shantadurga Enterprises
Cell: +91 99675 16383
From India, Mumbai
Thank you very much for valuable sharing.
Regards.
Keshav Korgaonkar
http://www.shantadurgaent.com,Welcome To Shantadurga Enterprises
Cell: +91 99675 16383
From India, Mumbai
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.
HC All - Trainees not covered for PF -2010.pdf
PF Ledger.xls