Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
Dear, Greetings! Statewise Minimum wages list is old. Please provide the latest one. Rgds
From India, Delhi
Please give me the clarity on New PF SC Judgement. Wat is the effective date for iplementing.
From India, Vijayawada
any one please explain me by using a calculation ..
From India, Coimbatore
The Supreme court has ruled to include SA for PF Contribution. Is it not necessary for EPFO to amend the PF rules to make employers & employees to comply with the changed Rules.
Comments of Seniors will be appreciated.
c.n.khan, h.r.consultant, Hospet. 27.3.19.

From India, Mumbai
Respected All, Greetings of the Day !
I have one query that please tell me how to calculate Basic and HRA for Gross salary according to government rule. plz help me.
Your cooperation will be highly thank full.
Rahul Nain

From India, Faridabad
The basic Act of Employees Provident Fund and Misc Provisions Act itself defines the Basic Wages as the whole amount which an employee earns while on duty or on leave. That itself is clear that by whatever name called wages means the amount that the employer has agreed to pay to an employee and it includes everything including special allowance. It is the same amount he gets even when he takes a paid leave. It is not that on leave days the employee will be paid only basic wages fixed by the employer. Certainly, if you pay some thing additional to a particular employee or a group of employees considering the special skill that he or they puts in for work, that can be excluded from the definition of wages. Therefore, there is no need of amending the Act. The Act is very clear and what is required is to change the mind of the employers and HR persons who give such wrong ideas to the employers.
Please follow the link

From India, Kannur
Till the time there is no Gazette Notification or a Specific Circular is issued, it is deemed to a decision only; not a binding statute.
From India, undefined
I repeat, Mr Nihar, there is no need to issue a gazette notification based on a court verdict nor a gazette notification will be issued by the Government to implement a policy of the EPF Organisation. Certainly, in order to ensure that all establishments contribute as per the Act and the interpretation by the Apex Court, a Circular will be issued by the Central PF Commissioner to all the RPFCs and APFCs to enforce the law in its spirit and conduct enquiries under section 7A to assess any omission and make the employer pay the difference.
From India, Kannur
Dear Members,
The discussion started by Ms Renuka for Basic Rate pf 15 k salary. It was well described by Umakanth sir. By referring MW Act point, it is clear that his/her category (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled etc.) must be taken care.
I have some query / clarification on the matter:-
One member (Mownica Selestna A) stated “Yes... Absolutely... Basic payment 15k is attractive for fresh candidates... So keep it up...”.
I would like to clear 15 k may be attractive but if the applicable MW rate (under the appropriate govt) for his/her category is more than 15 k than you must pay the rate. It is immaterial whether he/she is fresher or experienced. Law stand equal for all.
I am telling this point because Ms Renuka posted from “Delhi” where the rate of Semi Skilled, Skilled and Graduate employee are more than 15 k (15,400, 16,962 & 18,462 respectively). There is another revision due wef 01st Apr’19 (for which formal notification yet not issued). However, under Central Rule revised rates have been notified (which are Industry specific and in most cases more than 15k).
Ms Renuka, I would like to consider those points as well.
My next point is related to Madhu sir.
The EPFO has issued letter to the RPFCs and APFCs for the enforcement. But whether concerned PF Office will also issue further intimation to the employers or the SC Judgement itself is enough for all. If this is the case, pls tell me whether only SC Judgement is final, or we can/should treat any HC Judgement as final decision (if not challenged in SC).
My main concern is related to Gratuity Act. In a case the Hon’ble Madras Court has allowed 4 years and 240 days should be eligible for Gratuity. But there is no notification issued under the Act. Hence many experts still refer “Continuous 5 year Service” is eligible for Gratuity payment.
So the HC Judgement itself is not a final rules but related to a specific case.
Please give your valued expert advice on the same.

From India, Delhi
EPFO has a team of enforcement officers whose primary duty is to ensure that the law (EPF & MP Act) is enforced. Whenever the rate of contribution changes, they have to inform the employers that the rate has changed and hence forth you should pay at the new rates. Similarly, when the ceiling is increased, they will inform us that those who come under the revised salary bracket should also be covered. But this is not a change but only a clarification. Still there may be circular from the RPFCs to all the employers directing that you all should start contributing on the gross salary or such amount which is the salary agreed as per contract of employment. This will not make the employers to pay it on gross salary but again the Enforcement Officers should go to each employer's place and conduct inspection and collect information of omitted wages (that part of wages left out without paying PF)
If the Madras High Court has ruled that 4 years and 240 days days should make 5 years continuous service, then the appropriate authority shall quote the same when a complaint for non payment of gratuity arises. As far as an employer is concerned since there is no amendment given in the basic Act, how can he pay it? In the PF case, the PF Act clearly says what is basic wages and it is nothing but the whole amount as agreed with the employee. There is no amendment required nor a direction required. The employer can read the Act and start paying the contribution on the whole salary.In the case of gratuity a reading of the Act says that his liability comes only when an employee leaves after serving for 5 years. Therefore, he can say No if the employee has only stayed for 4 years and some 241 days in the fifth year. Certainly, the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act can cite a case of Madras High Court( Mettoor Beardsel...) or Kerala High Court (Sreeja Vs RJLC) and direct the employer to pay it.
If such things come to me, I will pay it saying that a few High Courts have directed to pay it in the similar cases. In order to avoid hearings and intervention of Labour department officials, you can also pay it right when an employee leaves even if he is short of a month or two.

From India, Kannur

Please Login To Add Reply

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™