SUPREME COURT ON EPF CONTRIBUTIONS ON ALLOWANCES
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 following order was passed :
ITEM NO.MM-128 COURT NO.12 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. NOS.4-5 in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8781-8782/2012
(From the judgment and order dated 24-3-2011 in WPC No.1891/2011 and dated 22-11-2011 in RP No.117/2011 of the High Court of M.P. at Gwalior)
SURYA ROSHNI LTD. Petitioner(s)
versus
EMP. PROVIDENT FUND & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR DIRECTIONS)
Date: 13-7-2012 These I.As were mentioned today
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Arya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv., Mr. Harvinder Singh, Adv., Mr. Sunil Singh Parihar, Adv., Mr. Nitin Gaur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Liz Mathew
Upon being mentioned the Court made the following
ORDER
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit 60% of the amount demanded, after getting credit to the amount already paid, within a period of two weeks.
On the above facts, we are inclined to grant stay of the High Court judgment.
The I.As are, accordingly, disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
________________________________________
Some of the appeals, as decided by The EPF Appellate Tribunal, are summarized and published under following captions :
• Contributions, as recovered without identification of employees, are liable to be refunded by EPFO
• Levy of damages not proper when there was no conscious failure of employer
• Apprentices not to be covered as employees
• Workers to be identified before the assessment is made
• EPF Appellate Tribunal can allow instalments for payable dues by the employer
• Damages for delayed payment of contributions to be quashed
________________________________________
As usual, amongst others, the following latest judgments (as decided in 2012) are being published in August 2012 issue of Labour Law Reporter. The salient features are given below :
From India, Mumbai
18It 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 following order was passed :
ITEM NO.MM-128 COURT NO.12 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. NOS.4-5 in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8781-8782/2012
(From the judgment and order dated 24-3-2011 in WPC No.1891/2011 and dated 22-11-2011 in RP No.117/2011 of the High Court of M.P. at Gwalior)
SURYA ROSHNI LTD. Petitioner(s)
versus
EMP. PROVIDENT FUND & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR DIRECTIONS)
Date: 13-7-2012 These I.As were mentioned today
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Arya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv., Mr. Harvinder Singh, Adv., Mr. Sunil Singh Parihar, Adv., Mr. Nitin Gaur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Liz Mathew
Upon being mentioned the Court made the following
ORDER
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit 60% of the amount demanded, after getting credit to the amount already paid, within a period of two weeks.
On the above facts, we are inclined to grant stay of the High Court judgment.
The I.As are, accordingly, disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
________________________________________
Some of the appeals, as decided by The EPF Appellate Tribunal, are summarized and published under following captions :
• Contributions, as recovered without identification of employees, are liable to be refunded by EPFO
• Levy of damages not proper when there was no conscious failure of employer
• Apprentices not to be covered as employees
• Workers to be identified before the assessment is made
• EPF Appellate Tribunal can allow instalments for payable dues by the employer
• Damages for delayed payment of contributions to be quashed
________________________________________
As usual, amongst others, the following latest judgments (as decided in 2012) are being published in August 2012 issue of Labour Law Reporter. The salient features are given below :
From India, Mumbai
good one it was very good to as i was casualy going through the site but i got wornder full information. Regards Anand
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
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