Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (‘Petitioner’) Vs. Employees’ Provident Fund - CiteHR
AK CHANDOK
Epf & Esi Matters
+2 Others

Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
Please find attached a scanned copy of Judgment Copy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (‘Petitioner’) vs. Employees’ Provident Fund has held that certain allowances like conveyance allowance, transportation allowance and special allowance should be treated as part of Basic wages under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’). Accordingly, provident fund (‘PF’) contributions should be remitted on such allowances.

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf Montage-Enterprises-Pvt -Ltd-versus-Employees-Provident-Fund.pdf (1.71 MB, 600 views)

Community Prime Sponsors
FactoHR.com - Payroll Software with GPS Enabled Attendance, Travel, Performance Management, HRMS.
Talentedge.com "Interactive Anywhere Learning". Executive courses from top reputed institutes like IIM, XLRI, MICA.
Dear Friends, Recently two topics are of great concern for all of us relating to EPF matter. One relates to deduction and deposition of contributions on various allowances as decided by Hon,ble High Courts of Madhya Pradesh & Madras H.C. , and decision of Hon,ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and second is issue of circular by EPFO on the issue of enforcing contributions as per Minimum Wages Act as being read & debated in these coloumns .Again, we have to see that Hon,ble EPFAT has also given two different decisions on the same issue i.e., in the case of G-4 Securitas ,duly upheld by P&H H.C (recently learnt that also has been upheld by the D.B. ),and on the other hand dismissing appeal of Montage Enterprises as well as of Reynold Pens Ltd.,duly dismissed by Hon,ble Madras H.C. with many other similar nature writ petitions.

In the light of above position, in my view, we have to wait for the final verdict of Hon,ble Supreme Court on this issue as and when any SLP is filed by the affected party.

Chandok

ex-RPFC
Sir,
THE DB version canbe considered now, but its retrospective effect to others is a question of law because the contradiction in Section 2 & 6. So if anybody asked to pay as per the Montage Enterprise & Madras high Court cases, let EPF authorities give the management oppertunity to get re-imbursement or repayment if the SPL willbe infavour of the employer.
REgards
GD
Dear Members,
The EPFO already filed a SLP before SC on splitting of minimum wages on EPF Contribution, the case is not yet listed for hearing.
Ref: G4Security Services Vs EPFO. In the Reynolds pen case, the management of Reynolds obtained an interim stay passed by the DB, against the order of Single Judge. We believe that, the SLP verdict will give more clarity on this issue. Further more, All EPFO, RPFC informed through the Department Circular, since the matter is under sub-judice not to proceed on this issue.
Yes please. Keeping in view the latest circular of EPFO as stated above, we have to wait for the verdict of Hon,ble Apex Court.
Chandok
RPFC (Retd.)
09988021715

<link no longer exists - removed>
Illustration 1
Production Incentive/Allowance
A company gives an incentive/allowance of Rs 500 to motivate its workers to give increased production.
Say Rs 500 for producing 500 pieces of safety pins, Rs 400 for 400 pins and so on.
That is- there is a criteria/condition, for getting the allowance is his fulfilling the condition of producing the proportional number of pins.
Attendance Incentive/Allowance
A company gives an incentive/allowance of Rs 200 to motivate its workers to attend their duty the maximum number of days in a month.
Say Rs 200 is given if a worker takes only 2 days leave per month.
Rs 170 are given when 3 to 5 leaves are taken per month and so on.
That is- there is a criteria/condition, for getting the allowance is his fulfilling the condition of attending the maximum number of days a month.
Then according to the judgment given by a Division bench of the M.P. High Court bench at Gwalior in Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs EPFO Indore :
Both the
This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2019 Cite.Co™