1. Dispute regarding the determination of basic wages for provident fund contributions under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1761
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - Appellant
Versus
M/S G4s Security Services (India) Ltd. - Respondents
& Anr.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284 OF 2013
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Important Points
The Court held that since the EPF Act contains a specific definition of 'basic wage' under Section 2(b), it cannot be expanded or equated with the definition of 'minimum rate of wages' under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation.
Subject
Employment Law - Provident Fund
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 2(b) and 7A - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Determination of provident fund contribution - The appellant contended that the respondents improperly split the wage structure, resulting in a reduced basic wage that undermined employee contributions - Courts rejected this, emphasizing specific definitions in the EPF Act take precedence over the Minimum Wages Act - The impugned judgment concluded there was no compulsion to equate 'basic wage' with 'minimum wage' under the Minimum Wages Act - The appeal was dismissed as meritless - There were no cost orders. (Paras 3-4)
(B) Legal Interpretation - The legislature’s intention indicates the specificity in definitions under a particular act is paramount, precluding expansive interpretation that conflicts with legislative purpose. (Para 4)
(B) Legal Interpretation - The legislature’s intention indicates the specificity in definitions under a particular act is paramount, precluding expansive interpretation that conflicts with legislative purpose. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : 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 the Respondent: 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.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : 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 the Respondent: 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.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the definition of basic wage under the EPF Act should be equated with the definition of minimum rate of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (Para 3 )
3. The court found that the specific definition of basic wage in the EPF Act precludes the need to refer to the Minimum Wages Act for an expansive interpretation. (Para 4 )
4. When a statute provides a specific definition for a term, that definition governs and cannot be expanded by referring to definitions in other statutes. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed as meritless. (Para 6 )
6. Can the definition of basic wage under the EPF Act be expanded by referring to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948?
No. Because the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining basic wage under Section 2b, the court held there was no occasion to refer to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to provide a different or expansive connotation. (Para 4 )
7. What is the effect of a prior administrative order on a similar issue that was not appealed?
The court observed that where a similar issue was previously decided by the APFC under Section 7(a) of the EPF Act and the department accepted the order by not filing an appeal, it is pertinent to the current determination. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
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[LPA No. 1139 of 2011 (O&M)], which was directed against the order dated 01st February, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition2[CWP No. 15443 of 2009 (O&M) 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[Hereinafter referred as ‘EPF Act’], 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 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 7(a) of the EPF Act, that was 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.
