Dear All,
Greetings.
Please find enclosed the SCI Order dated 13-07-2012 for SLP(C) No. 8781-8782/2012 (from the judgment and order dated 24-03-2011 in WPC No. 1891/2011 and dated 22-11-2011 in RP No. 117/2011 of The High Court of M.P. at Gwalior).
Regards,
Mikky Vij
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
30Greetings.
Please find enclosed the SCI Order dated 13-07-2012 for SLP(C) No. 8781-8782/2012 (from the judgment and order dated 24-03-2011 in WPC No. 1891/2011 and dated 22-11-2011 in RP No. 117/2011 of The High Court of M.P. at Gwalior).
Regards,
Mikky Vij
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Mr. Mikky Vij, for sharing the SC order Judgment copy. What was the outcome of this case? Whether the bifurcation of minimum wages is authorized or not. Is it possible to pay the PF only for the Basic Wages part on Minimum Wages, or do we have to pay for the VDA also?
The clarification in this regard will help our members.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The clarification in this regard will help our members.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 above stay order was passed by Supreme Court. The case is still pending for final judgement.
Thanks
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
A special leave petition to appeal, as filed, came up for hearing on 13.7.2012, in which the above stay order was passed by Supreme Court. The case is still pending for final judgement.
Thanks
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
The employer had not stated or pleaded before the court who the contributions were paid to, and the routine inspecting authorities had not brought the disallowed allowances to the notice of the employer before the proceedings were initiated. Also, the Coverage Memos issued at the time of providing the registration number do not contain a clear definition of wages (Basic). These are instances of information suppression by authorities.
Regards,
Law Anand
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
Law Anand
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Latest Notification by EPF Authorities
This is the latest notification by the EPF authorities on this issue:
Link: [Circular dated 30 November 2012 of EPFO Department on Inclusion of Allowances in Wages for PF Contribution](http://asklabourproblem.info/note-of-the-new-circular-by-provident-fund-department-dated-30th-november-2012/)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is the latest notification by the EPF authorities on this issue:
Link: [Circular dated 30 November 2012 of EPFO Department on Inclusion of Allowances in Wages for PF Contribution](http://asklabourproblem.info/note-of-the-new-circular-by-provident-fund-department-dated-30th-november-2012/)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all, Greetings for the day. Enclosing the latest update from the Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Roshni vs. EPFO for reference. Please go through it.
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Definition - PF Basic Wages - Supreme Court - Brief.pdf