Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI
I P C L Employee Association (Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh) – Appellant
Versus
Reliance Industries Ltd. (Which Was Having Name As That) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(A.S. Supehia, J.)
1. The Courts time and again have been confronted with the litigation relating to the interpretation of the expression “the cash value of any food concession” as used in section 2(b)(i) and Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “EPF Act, 1952”). The present appeal stems out from such issue.
2. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent – Reliance Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the “the Industries”) assailing the order dated 20.01.2000 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the respondent – Industries, while confirming the orders dated 25.06.1998 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vadodara under Section 7A of the EPF Act, 1952 and the order dated 01.06.1999 passed by the respondent – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
BRIEF FACTS :-
3. The dispute between the appellant – IPCL Employees Association and the Industries pertain to “t
The cash canteen subsidy is classified as the cash value of any food concession, thus included in dearness allowance under the EPF Act, subject to provident fund contributions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'wages' under Section 2(22) of the ESI Act in relation to specific allowances, and the burden of proof on t....
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....
Payment made under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act does not constitute 'wages' for the purpose of provident fund contribution.
Cash payments made by an assessee to employees do not qualify as perquisites and hence are not subject to restrictions in deductible expenditure.
The court established that interim relief and concessional values must be included in wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing strict compliance with wage payment mand....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
