Can Minimum Wages Be Split For Pf Contribution? - PDF Download - CiteHR
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...
Dear Kamal,

Alteration of the words of the Article by any one may not change the sense of the article referred by you. You are requested to re-read the Article 141 and interpret the same accordingly.

Article 141 states, "Law declared by Supreme Court TO BE binding," NOT that "the law laid down by Supreme Court of India is binding", as you have stated."

Further, even your post confirms my conviction. UNLESS any law is DECLARED to be binding by the Supreme Court, that shall not be binding on unreported cases to any court in general, what to say of the private organisation to presume to be binding on them.

Moreover, the said Article 141 stresses upon the All other COURTS (NOT companies/ enterprises) to follow the law of the Supreme Court, as binding. So, any law declared to be binding on COURTS does not authorise the private organisations to take any judgment granted to their benefit without any judgment by any court in their own cases. So, unless any such case comes before any court of law, the judgment of Supreme Court cannot be made automatically applicable at the hands of any organisation without the courts going in to the merits of the case.

Dear all,
Going through the judgement of various high courts & the official order issued by epfo on behalf of supreme court of india i must have an openion that not to split the minimum wage, as far as judiciary is concern high court can't overrule supreme court judgement.My view is firm that never to split the minimum wage and contribution should be done on the same.
Thanks & regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena,

Dear Mr. Dhingra ,
I agree with you that "alteration of the words of the Article by any one may not change the sense of article 141" and would also like to add that the interpretation of Article 141 will remain same that the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization including those who are not a party to that order/judgement.
I would request you to go through the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002 in which the Supreme Court expounded Article 141 and held that "when Supreme Court decides a principle it would be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court and a judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity."

Dear Kamal,

Have you read Article 141 of the Constitution? If you have read, please point out where in the article 141, it has been written that "the law declared by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person/institution/organization including those who are not a party to that order/judgement." and also, if any person/ institution/ organisation is exempted from getting specific orders in their case without going in to the merits of the case of that organisation by the courts.

Further to it, the judgment of July 2011 that discusses about the bifurcation of wages is of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and DOES NOT RELATE to the Supreme Court.

Also, it would be better, it you attach the copy of judgment, as you referred in your post to enhance my knowledge to understand your view point through that judgment.

From your post, it clearly shows as if you do not find any difference between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institution, etc."

For your kind information, Section 141 relates to a Chapter specifically dealing with "THE UNION JUDICIARY." The Chapter of the Constitution does not deal with the "CITIZENS" or their fundamental rights, or even trade, commerce, finance, contracts, or services of employees with private organisations.

I would like you to quote any provision of law, if that equates COURTS and INDIVIDUALS/INSTITUTIONS on equal footing.

Dear Mr Dhingra,
With due respect I would like to say that I do find lot of difference between the terms "Courts" and "individual persons/institution, etc."
But at the same time I also know and understand that any court's judgement are pronounced on the appeal of an individual persons/group/institution etc. and it is an individual persons/group/institution which is effected by the judgement of any court, directly or indirectly.
I am also confident that the court do not accept an appeal of an alien neither court judgement are not pronounced for aliens.

Did I say aliens in any of my post?
Evidently, with all your irritation, you are going totally off track on your own statement on the pretext of aliens just to evade from your wrong interpretation about Article 141 of the Constitution, but you do not seem to admit reality about the courts versus the individuals/institutions.
I won't have any objection if you start working in your organisation or to advice your clients on the basis of P&H judgment delivered in favour of M/s G4S Security Services and see the result yourself.
Wish you all the best!

Dear PS Dhingra
I fully support Kamal, on his views on the above topic, please read article 131A,135,141,32,131,132,140,138,139,32A, these articles will help you understand the powers and jurisdiction of Supreme court.
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”

Dear Octavious,

I appreciate your efforts for taking trouble to oppose tooth and nail my contention by quoting even the repealed Articles of the Constitution. Quotation of repealed articles, like 32A, 131A, clearly indicates that you are reading just between the lines, while the Constitution of India clearly indicates the facts of repealment against the Article concerned by clearly referring the relevant Constitution Amendment Acts of 1977 (both). Both the Articles were repealed 33 years back to be effective from 13.04.1978.

I don't have any objection, if you support the wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal, but I wonder a SUPER MODERATOR, like you, prefers to support the wrong views that too by virtue of super old knowledge of more 33+ years and also by misinterpreting the provisions of the existing Constitution of India tending to only mislead the community, rather than showing a right path or solution to the community seeking guidance from us.

Further, you probably forget that the Constitution has been divided in different sections/parts and the chapter of each part discusses matters pertaining only to matters related to that subject by not touching any other aspect. You can very well see that except the Articles 32 and 32A, all the Articles (131A,135,141,131,132,140,138,139) quoted by you discuss only about the "UNION JUDICIARY" to be applicable to ONLY the judiciary and not the public in general or business, etc. This aspect I have already mentioned in my last reply to Shri Kamal's post.

Now coming to Article 32, this relates to "REMEDIES for enforcement of rights" of the individual citizens. Needless to emphasize, remedies on arising of any dispute are sought by some one who is aggrieved, but cannot be assumed unauthorisedly by him. The Article very clearly states about the RIGHT TO MOVE SUPREME COURT BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, not by presuming that the Supreme Court should itself presume about any dispute existing between individual to individual and start automatically moving itself, unless some one files a petition about the nature of dispute with some other party.

Article 32A, relating to Constitutional validity of State Laws, which was only deleted more than 33 years back, but also has nothing to do with the Central relating to EPFO.

I wonder, how as a super moderator you believe that the P&H judgment of July 2011 also has the same value as that of the Supreme Court when you very well know that the EPFO can still file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the orders under the provisions of Article 133 (as avoided quoting in your post) to get that quashed. Moreover, there was no direction of the P&H High Court for the EPFO to implement their judgment to the cases of lakhs of the contributing organisations.

You have also avoided to quote Article 142 of the Constitution along with other Articles in your reply. Probably, you have NOT tried to interpret the same where it clearly states that the Supreme Court has also to make such ORDER and prescribe manner to make any decree or order enforceable under any law made by the parliament and UNTIL provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by ORDER prescribe.

The Article, thus clearly emphasises on specific order by the Supreme Court for general application that too only up till the President of India makes any specific order and prescribes the manner in that respect. BUT NOT in any individual case to be implemented in general manner merely on presumption basis and without any specific authority issued either by the Supreme Court or the President of India. Here in this case the irony is that the order, itself, does not relate to the Supreme Court, nor even the High Court, what to say of Supreme Court has issued any specific orders for applying the same in general to all the organisations, other than the G4S Security Services, in whose case the judgment has been delivered by the P&H High Court.

Dear Dingra

I can not teach you something no matter how right it is, if you yourself dont wish to learn. I am giving you a link please go through the same.

Supreme Court of India - Jurisdiction

Welcome to Indian Courts

About the repealed post has been put there for you to search the reason, and process behind the repeal, so that you get the idea how things have evolved in judiciary over a period of time.

Mr.Dingra please dont mind, I had seen many posts that you have made in various websites, of which you are member of, and every where I have seen, that you tend to get personal in a professional debate, and start making personal remarks . Kindly understand the fact that you cannot be always right every where. I do not wish to get down right dirty by arguing and making personal remarks on members.

I wish to maintain decorum of the forum, hence I wish not to indulge in further arguments on above topic with you

And I suggest caution, that law should be understood in totality and not in section or articles basis.



Dear Mr Dhingra,
I am sorry to say that I would not like to reply to your inputs any further on this thread reason being now you have made it a prestige issue and trying to justify and prove your views which is taking the topic off the track.
You believe that what you said is only correct is wrong and not acceptable to me.
Repeating the same words 100 times "wrong opinion of Mr. Kamal" will not give you a certificate that what you said is correct and also certainly can not impose your views on readers.
I would only say that your interpretation of the words of the Contitution is different from mine and my interpretaion of Article 141 is based on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.B. Patanaik, Justice S.N. Phukan and Justice S.N. Variava in 2002.

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 @ 2020 Cite.Co™