I don't know why many of the members are confused with PF statutory compliance. There's nothing wrong with Mr. Korgaonkar's outburst regarding the wrong practices followed and suggested.
Based on the numerous postings, I believe the main confusion starts from the restriction up to ₹6500. If so, I can raise the following queries:
1. If you can restrict the total PF employer/employee contribution to ₹780 for all employees, then you can maintain the basic as ₹6500 flat. Why should you fix a percentage component on Basic, HRA, Conveyance, etc.? Many companies have started following this ₹780 model just to minimize their contribution. Nowhere on the EPFO site is it officially stated that PF contribution (3.67%) can be the employer's choice on ₹6500. Many PF commissioners have not objected to this model. It had restricted only the Employee pension contribution (8.33%) and not the total employer contribution of 12% on the actual basic.
2. Another untold rule is that EPFO is insisting that on gross salary, the basic component has to be 70%. I once asked a PF officer if this is going to be the rule, in what way it is going to affect the employer when he is following ₹780 only? He had no answer.
3. If the employer PF benefit is only ₹9600 per annum maximum, we can open an RD account in a nationalized bank, so why a PF account?
4. If the basic for all is not fixed flat at ₹6500, will the employer not spend a high amount on bonus, gratuity, leave encashment, OT, etc.? These are directly linked to the basic, so why does the employer incur huge expenses on these?
5. If an employee serves for 30 years, at the max he can get ₹3 lakhs with interest. Is this an appreciable PF benefit derived from the employer irrespective of the position held? Does this not sound fishy?
In my view, if PF is not diligently followed as per Social Security law, it can go to scrap. The employee can at least remain a consultant without any headache from benefits.
Regards,
Chandru