The controversy shroding in splitting minmum wages into basic pay etc for the purpose of epf contribution has finally been put to rest with an advent of recent ruling of Supreme court,The udgemnet of SC is appended below
P Senthilkumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284 OF 2013
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD.
& ANR.
..... RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. The appellant-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is
aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th July, 2011, passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in an
intra-Court Appeal1, which was directed against the order
dated 01st February, 2011, passed by the learned Single
Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition2 filed by the appellant.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had
impugned the order dated 15th June, 2009, passed by the
Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 19523,
while determining the issue raised by the respondents
regarding the liability of the Management under the
provisions of Section 7A of the EPF Act. The stand of the
appellant is that for the purposes of determining its
contribution towards provident fund, the respondent no.1 was
1 LPA No. 1139 of 2011 (O&M)
2 CWP No. 15443 of 2009 (O&M)
3 Hereinafter referred as ‘EPF Act’
C.A. No. 9284 OF 2013
wrongly splitting the wage structure of the employees and
treating the reduced wage as the basic wage to the detriment
of the employees, thereby evading its liability to
contribute the correct amount towards provident fund. The
aforesaid stand taken by the appellant has been turned down
by the Appellate Tribunal as also by the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General submits that for the purposes of determining the
basic wage under the EPF Act, reference must be made to the
definition of the expression ‘minimum rate of wages’ under
Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This aspect has
been considered in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and
turned down holding that there was no compulsion to hold the
definition of ‘basic wage’ to be equated with the definition
of ‘minimum wage’ under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
4. In our opinion, once the EPF Act contains a specific
provision defining the words ‘basic wage’ (under Section
2b), then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect
the Court to have travelled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as
sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of
the legislature.
5. It is also pertinent to note that a similar issue had
come up for consideration in the order dated 23rd May, 2002,
passed by the APFC under Section 7A of the EPF Act, that was
C.A. No. 9284 OF 2013
duly accepted by the appellant department as the said order
was not taken in appeal.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present
appeal is dismissed as meritless. There shall be no orders
as to costs.
..................J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
..................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 17, 2023.
PS
C.A. No. 9284 OF 2013
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284/2013
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA)LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 104606/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
Date : 17-08-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G.
Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR
Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv.
Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Adv.
Mr. Sahas Bhasin, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Harvinder Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Monga, Adv.
Ms. Prakriti Jalan, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR
Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Adv.
Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH