C. M. POONACHA
Himalaya Drug Company – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks declaration on epf contribution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. epf commissioner orders contribution payment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's argument against pf liability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis and considerations outlined. (Para 9 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. employment status of workmen noted. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 6. order for recalculation of contributions. (Para 20 , 23) |
| 7. final conclusions on pf contributions drawn. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
C.M. Poonacha, J.
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
b) Order dated 05.04.2019 in EPF Appeal No.336/2017 at Annexure 'K' passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court and EPF Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru;
c) Declare that EPF contribution is not payable on ex-gratia and 17B wages;
d) Pass such other appropriate order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent Nos.3 to 14 were its employees and were transferred from Bengaluru to Dehradun on 08.07.2005 and
Bridge & Roof Co.(India) Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) AIR 1963 SC 1474
Dena Bank v. Kiriti kumar T Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106
Dinesh Khare v. Industrial Tribunal 1982 (2) LLJ 17
District Exhibitors Association Muzaffarnagar v. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 119
Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director ESI Corporation (1984) II LLJ 475 SC
Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation AIR 2010 SC 1116
K C Joshi v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 153
Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner AIR 2008 SC 1951
Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (1992) 2 SCC 723
Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corpn. v. Popular Automobiles AIR 1997 SC 3956
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II)
Sant Raj v. OP Singla AIR 1985 SC 617
Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 519
Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India 2006 (12) SCC 233
Swastik Textile Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Virjibhai Mavjibhai Rathod 2008 (116) FLR 1002
Payment made under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act does not constitute 'wages' for the purpose of provident fund contribution.
The court upheld the authority's order confirming the eligibility of employees for Provident Fund membership despite their salaries exceeding the statutory limit, emphasizing the welfare nature of th....
The employer must ensure EPF contributions for all employees, including those employed through contractors, and must comply with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings.
The terrain allowance is not included in 'basic wages' as defined by the EPF Act due to its inconsistency among employees; thus, it is exempt from EPF contributions.
Point of Law : Provident Fund is not a tax. It is an amount collectable to the benefit of an individual identified employee as a social welfare measure.
The entitlement to ex-gratia payments under the NCWA is independent of other compensation, and the Labour Court cannot award interest on such payments unless explicitly provided in the settlement.
provision specifically provides that for computing the money value of a benefit accrued to the workman, the Labour Court can appoint the Commissioner for taking necessary evidence. Thus, the scope of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.