Dear All,
The amendment in original is being reproduced here under:-
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 1st January, 2016/Pausha 11, 1937 (Saka)
THE PAYMENT OF BONUS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 NO. 6 OF 2016 [31st December, 2015.] An Act further to amend the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
1. (1) This Act may be called the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 2014.
2. In section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the
principal Act), in clause (13), for the words ‘‘ten thousand rupees’’, the words ‘‘twenty-one
thousand rupees’’ shall be substituted.
The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 31st December, 2015, and is hereby published for general information:—
2. In section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (13), for the words ‘‘ten thousand rupees’’, the words ‘‘twenty-one thousand rupees’’ shall be substituted.
3. In section 12 of the principal Act,—
(i) for the words ‘‘three thousand and five hundred rupees’’ at both the places where they occur, the words ‘‘seven thousand rupees or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher’’ shall respectively be substituted;
(ii) the following Explanation shall be inserted at the end, namely:—
‘Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression ‘‘scheduled employment’’ shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.’.
Now where is the confusion. Section 12 which stipulate ceilings / restriction of calculations is amended and clearly says " seven thousand rupees or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher’’ shall respectively be substituted;
So many experts in the thread are doing wrong interpretations.
P K Sharma