Back
M. S. RAMESH, M. JOTHIRAMAN
Management of Mando India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to allow the appeals and set aside the orders of the learned Judge dated 07.06.2011 in WP.Nos.25442, 15823 & 22480 of 2010 respectively.
In all these Writ Appeals, the orders that were impugned in the Writ Petitions, are notices under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the EPF Act”), calling upon the employer to attend the inquiry to be conducted under Section 7A of the Act.
2. The learned Single Judge had upheld the orders passed by the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and rejected the Writ Petitions in WP.Nos.25442, 15823 & 22480 of 2010, through a common order dated 07.06.2011, by placing reliance on several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These orders of the Writ Court are assailed in the present Writ Appeals.
3. Pending the Writ Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir & others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 291, had passed a judgment, holding that, except the allowances, which are not earned by all employees equally and m
The Supreme Court defined 'basic wage' under the EPF Act, clarifying that only universally paid wages qualify, while variable allowances do not.
Allowances must be universally and necessarily paid to qualify as 'basic wage' under the EPF Act; variable allowances do not meet this criterion.
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 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.
The classification of basic wages must genuinely reflect employee remuneration, and artificial wage splitting to avoid statutory contributions is impermissible under the Act.
The Supreme Court established that basic wage does not include leave encashment, impacting provident fund contributions and related damages.
Payment made under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act does not constitute 'wages' for the purpose of provident fund contribution.
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
