Top New Follow Journal Login
Dear members, Can PF contribution be paid by splitting minimum wages ? Has any industry started this practice or it is legal now ? Regards,
From India, Delhi
Dear Naresh Yes, U can split minimum wages but u can not split minimum wages in Gurgaon only ? because in gurgaon commissioner had issue notification that u cant split minimum wages? Brijesh Saxena
From India, Gurgaon
Dear Naresh,
Greetings for the day,
As per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement minimum wages is the component of basic+da/vda so it can't be spiltted rather contribution will be paid on full .IF you are splitting the same prosecution will be done u/s 7A of EPF & misc. provision act.
thanks & regards,
From,
Sumit Kumar saxena,
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
definition of wages in Minimum Wages Act & definition of wages in PF Act is different.... pl refer the recent judgement of SC ... Minimum wages can be split up for PF contribution,
From India, Vadodara
Yes, See the recent judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the EPFO gone for appeal against the impugned order of the same court earlier on the decision of Single judge.

Two member judge passed an order the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and EPF & MP Act, 1952 are two different Acts. One cannot interpret the Basic wagees as they feel like.

See the judgment of the P & H High Court.

However, there two other judgments (Madhya Pradesh High Court and Madras High Court) are against this concept. Means they have given judment in favour of EPFO i.e. to include all allowances in the basic and pay contribution. Against this order (Madras High Court), the employers have gone for appeal in High Court, and the hearing is posted on 26th or 29th (I do not remember correctly). We will come to know once this is heard.

Hitherto organizations (including ours) are practicing of splitting of Minimum Wages. We are continuing the same concept unless and until there comes clear cut ruling.

It is your wish whether you want to split Minimum Wages or otherwise.

Balaji
From India, Madras

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf P & H High court - July 2011.pdf (1.54 MB, 2414 views)

no MINIMUM WAGE CANT BE SPLIT AND DEDUCTION OF EPF IS DONE ON BASIC+DA/VDA+FOOD CONC.(IF ANY), IF MINIMUM WAGE IS THE COMPONENT OF THE SAME HOW IT CAN BE SPLIT, PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF JUDGEMENT TO ME SO THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH IT.
THANKS & REGARDS,
FROM,
SUMIT KUMAR SAXENA,
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
Mr. Sumit,
Assume Minimum Wages in a particular state is Rs.5500/- ( a hypothetical figure OK?). You (we) are splitting this as
Basic : 2000/-
HRA : 1500/-
Conv : 800/-
CCA : 1200/-
Total : 5500/- and paying PF contribution of Rs.240/- p.m.
1. As per Punjab and Haryana High Court, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING IT as above. Please see my attachment now (previous judgment), and the recent judgment in my previous post.
2. Also see other judgements of Madhya Pradesh (attached now) and Madras High courts (this is voluminuous and will send later)
3. See the chrolonogical order
Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement - favouring employer - 01/02/2011
Madras High Court favouring EPFO - 07/06/2011
Madhya Pradesh High Court - favouring EPFO - 21/06/2011
Punjab and Haryana High Court - favouing employer - 20/07/2011
You wound understand there is a huge confusion in the orders itself. You go through the same and come back to me.
Balaji
From India, Madras

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf MP HC JUDGEMENT ON PF[1].pdf (1.71 MB, 1379 views)
File Type: pdf Punjab and haryna High court judgment.pdf (549.6 KB, 983 views)

Here is the Madras High court order favouring EPFO. Read all judgments Balaji
From India, Madras

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: doc Madras High court judgement on PF contribtion.doc (95.5 KB, 908 views)

Dear All
Minimum wages cannot be split for PF contribution. PF calculation is done on minimum pages + basic salary. But there was recent proposal that all components of salary be included in calculation of contribution of PF.
Minimum wages after PF deduction if less then what ever is Minimum wages as per the notification of Government on Minimum wages rate,then such deduction shall stand null and void.
But if the minimum wages is higher than the notification issued by government on minimum rate of wages then the same shall not be null and void, and then such deduction shall be held correct and valid.
Kindly refer Minimum wages act for more details.
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Hi All
There is a lot of controversy on this subject and no body could found a definition on this. Any which way it can be interpreted. How ever in the recent notification from EPFO dated 23.05.2011 clearly says for the PF contribution, atleast to maintain the Minimum wages and that cannot be spited. i have enclosed the notification also for your reference.
But problem here is all the PF officials are going according to section 2(b) of the act. which says all allowance paid to be included for PF contribution. where as as per recent notification its only Minimum wages. but as per officials you have read both the sections together. ie, section 2(b) and 7
However as said lot of interpretations are happening and lot of the companies are getting affected and am also fighting with EPFO for the clarity as we got notice for not contributing conveyance allowance.
Regds
Pradeepan
From India, Raipur

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf PF - Circular - M W wages Act.pdf (684.1 KB, 1823 views)

Whole problem started only after the circular issued by EPFO. PF office cannot have locus standi to issue such order. The Act is enacted in the Parliament and if any changes required, it is to be issued by Government. And that is where the problem. Everyone has their own way of interpretation. Even in court orders there seems to be difference of opinion between judges (and that is the reason why we see different judgments in different courts).
Do not get confused. Wait till end of this month. There is a hearing coming in Madras High Court against the order issued earlier. The matter will be thrashed out. We will know - as an employer - as to what to do. Have patience.
Balaji
From India, Madras
Dear Balaji,

Some one raised the question in Lawyers Club India also on the basis the extant judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court. I replied to that question also on the Experts columns.

In fact, any judgment of any court becomes applicable only on that specific case in which judgment is made, unless specific orders of the competent court are there to apply on all the similar cases, or formal amemnd in the relevant law is made by the Parliament, or else, the Head of the Nodal department (here the EPFO in PF cases) issues specific orders to that effect.

Since, neither the Parliament mad any change in law, nor the Commissioner has issued any order to make it applicable generally on all the organisation, the effect of the judgment would remain restricted to the concerned organisation in favour of which the orders have been issued. Further, since the judgement is very recent, the EPFO, if it decides so, can also file an appeal against in Supreme Court against the said judgment.

So, in my views, it cannot be taken as granted to be effective in general for all the organisations, unless the organisations concerned are not able to get specific judgment individually in their own favour on the analogy of the existing judgment.

Your comments would however be valuable, if you have some other opinion against my views.


From India, Delhi
It is unjustice to split minimum wages for the sake of EPF Contribution.It has never been practice in the past to split minimum wages when it was Rs.1500/ or Rs.2000/-.
If the employer is paying allowances on minimum wages then that can be acceptable.
Jimmii d
From India, Delhi
Mr. Dhingra,

If you have a closer look at the circular floated by EPFO (from where the issue has started), you would understand they invoked certain judgments passed in certain cases like RPFC, Punjab Vs. Shibu Metal works, Crown Aluminium Works Vs. Workers Union, Kamani Metal works & Alloys, civil appeal in case of Air Friieght Limited Vs. in the State of Karnakata and Others.

It is a common phenomenon whenever such disputes take place, to quote the judgment or decree issued in favour or against that particular concept.

EPFO when they issued the circular, they quoted all the above cases justifying thier requirement of inclusion of all allowances in the basic wages and sought contribution on allowances.

When EPFO refers such cases, it is also possible for employers to quote certain court judgments supporting their claim. Therefore it is common for anyone to refer cases.

What I am trying to say is that there are different views in different forums and who is the deciding authority is what question now. When the Act is enacted in Parliament, whether EPFO have locus standi to issue such circulars and whether it has any merit. If EPFO initiates enquiry against employers and deals and passes separate orders for each and every enquiry initiated against such employers, and every employer has to approach High court / Supreme Court and get orders against such orders, where is the end? Therefore in my opinion, there should have been clear cut rule passed by Parliament w.r.t this issue with more clarity. Unless it happens, the EPF Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Courts will be flooded with appeals and claims. How many of us (employer) / you are ready to spend your productive time in tribunals and courts?

Please refer the letter sent to EPFO, Delhi by Mr. H.L. Kumar, who is also an advocate like you, who is also running a big organization "Labour Law Reporter". I read the letter but I do not have the copy of the letter at this point of time. (I will post it later). Mr. Kumar sought certain clarifications with respect to this issue but I do not think he has got any reply from them till now.

The circular issued by EPFO and court judgments have been floating around only to confuse and complicate things further and there is no solution. In the whole process, the employers are harrassed and nothing more.

Balaji
From India, Madras
Dear Balaji,
Please don't get confused, as only the EFPO has the authority to issue clarificatory circulars even on the basis of judgments, but a particular judgment does not apply to any other organisation, other than the organisation referred in the case, until the EPFO takes cognizance of the universality of the judgment and itself agrees to apply on all organisations. So, any organisation, other than the concerned one, cannot presume the applicability of the judgment to that unless specifically affected by an order of the court or the EFPO.

From India, Delhi
Dear PS Dingra
Its wrong to say that, the judgement of a particular High court is restricted only to particular geographic location, is wrong. High court rulings and supreme court judgements are used as precedents and used in future case of similar nature. High court judgement can be over ruled by a supreme court or a full bench of same or other High court.
Its purely the discretion of a High court to accept views of another court when a case of same nature is presented before, if different high courts conclude different views on same matter, then the disputed matter has to be decided by a full bench of any High court, and if order of full bench of High court, has to be challenged, then same can be done by appeal in supreme court.
Please refer Constitution of India for clarity on the same.
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Dear Octavious,

I have not used the words "particular geographic location" anywhere in any of my two posts. Probably you have misinterpreted the word "universality" used by me, which intended to convey that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organisations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organisations decides to apply uniformly to all the organisation.

In that respect, you have also agreed that the judgment can be used as precedent in future cases solely at the discretion of the courts. That also means the same thing, which I intended to convey. Hope you would have read my previous reply also. That also conveys the same thing. In other words, none of the organisations, other than the organisation on whose case the judgment was delivered, cannot treat the judgment to be applicable automatically to all the organisations universally, until specifically ordered to do so.


From India, Delhi
Dear Dingra

You tent to commit fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organizations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organizations decides to apply uniformly to all the organization. I say fallacy is committed because of following reasons

1. Judgement can be used in other organization is matter to be decided is of same nature and question raised or asked is same and no new question or query is raised.

2. Precedents do not amendment in any way any statute or law established, but it clears the ambiguity and opacity, amendment of law is with legislature and not with Judiciary.

3. Judgement until over ruled has to be followed by any and all organization who are party too or are effected by such judgement. And also any precedent which effects the public in general are applicable not only to the party to the case but to others also who are or may be effected by the judgement

Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Your view that "a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only" can not be termed as correct.
I would like to bring to your notice that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that "the law laid down by Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country". Numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution has given Supreme Court powers to act even as a legislative body as it has the authority to interpret a law passed by the parliament.
Same is applicable for High courts judgement regarding its binding within the jurisdiction of that particular High court.
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Dear Octavious,
If you find fallasy in my statement, you are free to sue me in some competent court of law at Delhi, OR ELSE quote relevant section of any law or court judgment in support of your own statment that any judgment can be made generally applicable to all other cases of other organisations without any specific order of the copurt of law or amendment to the relevant law, or by issue of specific instructions by the department concerned. Rather on the other hand, I feel, by your statment you are just misleading the managements of various other organisations.

From India, Delhi
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.


From India, Delhi
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,
From,
Sumit Kumar Saxena,
9899669071
From India, Ghaziabad
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."
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
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.


From India, Delhi
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.
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
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!

From India, Delhi
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.”
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
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.


From India, Delhi
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.

Regards

Ocatvious
From India, Mumbai
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.
Regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Dear Octavious,

Of course, nobody can teach any person, unless he has the desire to understand the reality by shunning his wrong concept.

But, I wonder, what did you want to convey by pasting link about "jurisdiction of Supreme Court", while I never raised any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Not only that, the site does not refute in anyway my own conviction. That also does not confirm your views and even does not stress upon the judgments of the High Court to have wider application unless ordered to be made so. So, I am unable to understand, how the site has any connection with my last reply.

Still further, the link refers to Article 133 also, which I quoted in my last reply, as you avoided to quote while referring other articles. That itself confirms my conviction to be true.

Not only that, when I tried to make you aware of the repealed Articles, you have come forward with your after-thought that "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," which you never intended in your original post. By such types of statements, you cannot falsify the realities. CAN YOU JUST MAKE ME UNDERSTAND WHAT I, YOU, OR THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD DERIVE BENEFIT FROM SEARCH OF THE REASON AFTER 33 YEARS OF THE REPEAL OF THE ARTICLES 33? Had you known any reason behind their repeal, you were welcome to quote not only for my knowledge but also for the benefit of the members of the community in general. Naturally, the said articles did not contain anything which could prove that the High Court Judgments or the Supreme Court judgments should not be implemented.

To be very frank, had you wished to maintain decorum of the forum, you as a super moderator could well have made a proper research before declaring my statement as fallacies, rather than trying to declare my views as fallacies, on which , where I have already offered myself to face any court case from your side to prove me wrong.

You may also like to review your own earlier statement “discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” I merely discussed on the Articles quoted by you, as your contentions were being side-tracked to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the applicability of the P&H High Court judgment on split up of wages for PF. About argument, what is your opinion about the advocates of both sides, making arguments to attract the attention of the judges, right from the lowest court to the Supreme Court and the argument of one side is accepted even by the Supreme Court. Do both the sides exchange their ignorance, while even the Supreme Court agrees on the ignorance as his knowledge and base its judgment on that? I BELIEVE, EVEN DISCUSSION SOMETIMES EXCHANGES MERE IGNORANCE, WHILE ARGUMENT MAKES THE OTHER FELLOWS UNDERSTAND HIS VIEW POINT LEADING TO ENHNACEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.

About your allegation "that you tend to get personal in a professional debate, and start making personal remarks," it is nothing except your bias and misunderstanding about me. Contrarily, your own post conveys that sense of making personal remarks, while you stated in your yesterday's post, "You tend to commit fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organizations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organizations decides to apply uniformly to all the organization."

I wish, by virtue of being super moderator and senior member, you could have shown your super knowledge, rather than any bias after properly interpreting the legal and constitutional requirements.

Anyway, thanks for your caution. BUT I know, I do not try to reply unless I understand the the implication of the relevant law. I also admit mistake wherever I am wrong.

However, if you feel some irritation on my replies in the CiteHR, I can avoid posting my replies in CiteHR. Of course, I have already reduced my activity at CiteHR due to the fact that some members don't relish my pointing out towards wrong information, where they expect me merely to endorse their opinions, irrespective of the fact how wrong that be.

Regards
PS Dhingra


From India, Delhi
Dear Kamal

Good decision, you have made. I suggest that we should not waste bandwidth and time on things of which out come would be negative.

As a matter of principle, its always better not to teach a person anything who is lost his/her learning curve.

Some people have that sense of seniority, and then they get confused that feeling of seniority with superiority , and then they start calling themselves superior to others. And believe me at this stage no person can convince these people with fake superiority complex that they are wrong and need to learn and understand the new and existing truth.

Being a Super moderator confirms more of responsibility and less of privilege, and hence have to ignore certain situation which can be easily confronted by me as a individual, but you have shown extraordinary resilience and maturity by avoiding unnecessary arguments and have proved superiority beyond realms of doubt

Sometimes, somethings are beneath contempt, and hence its always better to ignore such things.

Regards

Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Dear Octavious,

I am neither a senior member not a moderator (what to say of a super moderator). So, your contention as at 3rd para of your post has no relevance for me. I can only add, when some one fails in logic, he just starts uttering such like words or casting aspersion on the others, instead of bringing forth any fact contrary to the facts tried to be put before him and the audience.

Just make me aware, am I earning anything by sharing my knowledge free of cost and wasting my time to reply your views? I have already stated, if my views irk you or your position so much, you just advise me to stop writing at CiteHR. Mind it, CiteHR is not paying me anything. YOU CAN ALSO BAN MY CONTRIBUTION, AS A SUPER MODERATOR, IF YOU LIKE.

BUT, I can't help, if people like you,even being a super moderator, don't prefer rationality of views and advice.

I won't have any objection, if you and Mr. Kamal continue to offer any wrong advice to people or the managements of different organisations continue to adhere to such advice, as that won't cost me anything.

WITH BEST WISHES.


From India, Delhi
dear friends,
Please see the communication we received w.r.t. to contribution of PF on allowances.

PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ON ALLOWANCES
The first bench of the Madras High Court has stayed the order of a Single Judge passed in The Management of Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram and Others vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Chennai, 2011 LLR 876, holding that the employees’ provident fund contributions were payable on various allowances like Conveyance Allowance, Education Allowance, Special Allowances, Food Concessions, Medical Allowance, Special Holidays, Night Shift Incentive and City Compensatory Allowance. The stay order was passed in the presence of the counsel for Provident Fund Department. No next date has been fixed for final hearing of the appeal.
The Review Petitions before Madhya Pradesh High Court against the orders in Montage Enterprises, 2011 LLR 867 & Surya Roshini Ltd. etc., 2011 LLR 568 etc. pertaining to various allowances are fixed for 14th October, 2011.
Labour Law Reporter
A-43, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110 024
Ph. 011-29830000, 011-29840000, Fax No. 011-41727788
E-mail : labourlawreporter@vsnl.net <link updated to site home> ( Search On Cite | Search On Google ) Website : www.labourlawreporter.net


Balaji
From India, Madras
Dear Sir,
The situation is as below;
Our registered hospital address is in Chennai, where we have EPF code too & our branch hospital is commencing in Pune Maharashtra. We have around 40 staff at Pune hospital & all are going to be epf member. As per norms PF deduction is on basic+da, my question is which minimum wage is to be considered for this, either of Tamilnadu or Maharashtra.
Please help out me & also let me know what is the CORRECT CURRENT MINIMUM BASIC WAGE & DA for hospitals in Maharashtra. As I found different figures on various websites.
Thanking you in advance.

From India, Kolhapur
Dear Shrinisar
The minimum wages for pune employee should be considered as per the statute of Maharashtra.
Please check official notification through any labour consultant of Maharashtra for details on minimum wages for Maharashtra
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends
Greetings!
Do any of you have the copy of the stay order given by the Madras High court on writ petitions filed by The Management of Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram and Others vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Chennai, 2011 on PF –Minimum wages issue. If you have could you please share.
subsequent to that any circular made by the Regional Provident fund commissionaire( Legal/Compliance) saying not to insist till the stay order is vacated.
Thanks & Regards
K.VICTOR
From India, Madras
Dear Balaji,
Greetings for the day,
The assumption laid by by you and the copy of judgement forwarded by you, it must be noted that circular issued by EPFO not to split the minimum wage is in context of supreme court judgement, how can it should be overruled by a high court is really a matter of worry.
thanks & regards,
Sumit Kumar saxena

From India, Ghaziabad
Naresh No, you cannot split minimum wages for PF contribution Thanks & Regards Hema
From India, New Delhi

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf PF - No Spliting in Min Wage.pdf (684.1 KB, 121 views)

Dear All,

Regarding employers splitting up minimum wages to reduce PF liability, I personally feel that it is unethical irrespective of what the current law says. If the current law allows such a thing, then it is more of a loophole instead of original intention, I feel. In our organization (a private hospital) we don't have such practice.

However, looking at circular from EPFO, I am confused at one thing. Their main intention seems to be that PF contributions should be made at least on "Minimum Wage". Further they explain the concept of "Basic Wage" and say that it should not be less than the former.

So, are they saying that it is illegal/unethical even if "Basic + DA + other components eligible for PF" matches "Minimum Wage"?

Regards,

Krishna.

Note: I found this forum extremely useful and vibrant, hence joined as a new member. Also, I am new to management and no expert in law; pardon my ignorance on some aspects. I would like to humbly ask my questions with experts here and voice my opinion. If my posts are in violation with spirit of the forum, I request you to guide me.
From India, Kannur
Dear sir,
Due to different rates of EPF facing difficulties in deciding the accurate EPF contribution of employees, it would be appreciated if a clarification is given as to whether the EPF is applicable after revision of rates to Rs.7020/-. If applicable whether it is to be given on Rs.6500/- or Rs.7020/-.
Kindly attach if any circular/notification related to this matter.
An early reply in the matter is requested.
Thanking you.
Sunil kr
HR
From India, Delhi
Dear Mr. Brijesh Saxena,
As you well aware that we can't split minimum wage in Gurgaon bcz Gurgaon commissioner had issue notification that we can't split minimum wages. So we are requested to kindly provide me the soft copy of said notification on my mail id .
Thanks & Regards
ankush sharma
+919817618276
From India, Delhi
however the SC judgement stands final. So, you can split minimum wages for PF contribution. Even PF commissioner opposes it cannot stand before SC judgement
From India, Hyderabad
Dear sir,
Greetings for the day,
Earlier we have have quoted that minimum wages can't be split for the PF purpose but matter is subjudice in supreme court of india so it can be splitted till futhur order.Notification enclosed for the reference.
Thanks & regards,
From,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf img132.pdf (207.2 KB, 94 views)

Dear All
There has been lot of discussion on the matter of splitting of MW for PF contribution. In this connection, PFA copy of SC judgement in Airfreight Ltd v State of Karnataka as per which wages has to be as per Section 2 (h) of the Minimum Wages Act. Section 2 (h) of the Minimum Wages Act clearly mentions that wages includes House Rent Allowance. Therefore it is legal and safer to pay MW - consisting of Basic, Dearness Allowance and HRA.
Moreover the PF Appellate Tribunal recently has held that MW could be split and paid.
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (Hp : + 91 94835 17402 ; )
From India, Bangalore

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: pdf MW - Airfreight - SC 1999.pdf (461.5 KB, 30 views)
File Type: pdf PF Judgement - SC - Trainee.pdf (250.0 KB, 28 views)
File Type: pdf MW can be split -EPF App Trbnl 2015.pdf (129.1 KB, 56 views)

Dear Member,
Please advise can be split minimum wages in Delhi for the PF contribution.
Thanks & Regards
Mayuri
From India, Faridabad
Reply Here Start New Discussion






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2017 Cite.Co™