SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
M/S WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD – Petitioner
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7729/1999
Decided on: 22.07.2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate & Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocate
Mr. R.C. Chawla, Advocate

The canteen allowance constituted part of the basic wages and was liable to be included for the computation of provident fund dues under section 6 of the Act.

Headnote:

Employees Provident Fund - Canteen Allowance - Act Section 2(b), Section 6 - The court discussed the interpretation of 'basic wages' and 'cash value of food concession' under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The court held that the canteen allowance constituted part of the basic wages and was liable to be included for the computation of provident fund dues under section 6 of the Act. The court analyzed the definition of 'basic wages' and the exclusions provided under section 2(b) to conclude that the canteen allowance fell within the scope of 'basic wages'. The court also emphasized the beneficent nature of the Act and the need to interpret its provisions in favor of the workers.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the appellate order by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal regarding the inclusion of canteen allowance for computation of provident fund dues.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the canteen allowance constituted part of the basic wages and was liable to be included for the computation of provident fund dues.

Issues: The main issue was whether the canteen allowance paid by the petitioner to the employees should be included for the computation of provident fund dues under section 6 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'basic wages' and the exclusions provided under section 2(b) to conclude that the canteen allowance fell within the scope of 'basic wages'. The court also emphasized the beneficent nature of the Act and the need to interpret its provisions in favor of the workers.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was held liable to compute and pay the provident fund contribution by taking into account the canteen allowance being paid to the employees in terms of the binding settlement.

JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 28.07.1999 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), and the appellate order dated 17.12.1999 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissing the petitioners appeal under section 7I of the Act against the order dated 28.07.1999.

2. The petitioner runs its factory at Faridabad. In respect of its employees, it deducts and deposits the provident fund dues under the provisions of the Act. It appears that the petitioner provided subsidized canteen facilities to the workmen/employees working at its factory. Subsequently, a settlement was reached under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act) between the petitioner management and the workers union, namely, Kelvinator of India Employees Union (Regd.) on 13.10.1995. One of the terms of the said settlement relating to reorganization of canteen services and canteen allowance, which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as follows:

“15. REORGANISATION OF CANTEEN SERVICES:

a) Both the parties agree to re-organize the Canteen Services to introduce canteen allowance to the workmen in place of subsidized items. No subsidy will be paid hereafter to canteen contractor who will sell lunch, tea and snacks at the market rate.

b) CANTEEN ALLOWANCE: The workmen will be paid Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) per month as Canteen Allowance with effect from 1st January, 1996 in lieu of prevailing subsidized canteen facilities and will be proportional to the physical presence during the month. Even the half day availed by the workmen will be taken into account while calculating the canteen allowance.

c) Only vegetarian food will be made available in the canteen and the new rates in the canteen will be as under:-

EXISTING RATES NEW RATES

1. Item Rate No. Cost

2. Tea 0.15 02 0.30

3. Snacks 0.15 02 0.30

4. Lunch/Dinner 1.20 01 1.20 As per market rate Total 1.80”

3. There is no dispute on facts that though the canteen allowance of Rs.300/- was agreed to be paid with effect from 01.01.1996 in lieu of prevailing subsidized canteen facilities, the same was paid by the petitioner to the eligible employees/workmen with effect from 01.11.1996 onwards.

4. The area enforcement officer, upon inspection of the records of the petitioner, raised the issue with regard to non payment of provident fund dues in respect of the canteen allowance of Rs.300/- per month. The stand of the respondent authorities was that the said amount of Rs.300/- represented the cash value of food concession allowed to the employees -since the said allowance was in lieu of pre-existing subsidized canteen facilities and, consequently, by virtue of explanation (1) to section 6 of the Act, the said allowance was liable to be included as a part of the dearness allowance for purpose of computation of the employers share of contribution towards provident fund. This was disputed by the petitioner, which is what has given rise to the present petition. Before proceeding further, I may, at this stage set out the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Act for proper appreciation of the issue that arises for consideration by this Court.

5. Section 2(b) defines the expression “basic wages” to mean “all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in either case in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him, but does not include-

(i) the cash value of any food concession;

(ii) any dearness allowance that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living, house-rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable t


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top