Back to Home

 Labour Law Update 


1997-98 || 1999 || 2000 || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2005
EPF   2004-2005

 

  REFERENCE   ISSUE RAISED   HELD
1 UNION OF INDIA

VS

PATNA TYRE HOUSE LTD

2004(2)
LLJ 778
[HC-PAT-SB]

1

 

2

 

3

 THE PF INSPECTOR FOUND AN ESTABLISHMENT HAVING 19 EMPLOYEES & 3 DIRECTORS DRAWING REMUNERATION

THE ESTABLISMENT CHALLENGED EPF ORDER ON ITS COVERAGE

CAN REMUNERATION
DRAWING DIRECTORS BE INCLUDED AS “EMPLOYEES” FOR DETERMINING COVERAGE

1

 

2

 THE REMUNERATION DRAWING DIRECTORS CANNOT BE COUNTED AS “EMPLOYEES”FOR DETERMINING COVERAGE STRENGTH OF 20

HENCE ESTABLISHMENT FALLS OUTSIDE EPF COVERAGE
2 K.CHENNAKESAVALU
VS

EPF
COMMISSIONER

2004(102)
FLR 919
[HC-KAR-SB]

1

 

 

2

 EMPLOYEE CONTENDED THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR Rs1038 AS PENSION UNDER PARA12 (4) (a) OF EMPLOYEE PENSION SCHEME 1995

 

EPF AUTHORITIES TOOK THE STAND THAT AS PER CLARIFICATORY NOTIFICATION OF EPF AUTHORITIES DATED 10-5-99 ONLY Rs399 PAYABLE AS PENSION

1

 

2

 

3

 ANY CLARRIFICATION ISUED BY THE EPF AUTHORITY CANNOT TAKE AWAY BENEFITS OUTLINED IN STATUTE

DISAGREEING WITH COMPUTATION ADOPTED BY EPF AUTHORITIES ORDERED PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION AS ENVISAGED IN PARA12 (4) OF SCHEME

ORDERED PAYMENT OF Rs1038 LESS BY 9%FOR PREMATURE CLAIM OF 3 YEARS (9%)
3 VENKATESH D.R

VS

REG. PF COMMISSIONER,
HYDERABAD

2004(3)
LLJ 952
[HC-AP-5B]

1

 

 

2

 SECTION 8B AND 8C EMPOWER EPF AUTHORITIES TO ATTACH THE PROPERTY OF EMPLOYER AS WELL AS RESORTING TO IMPRISONING HIM FOR NON-REMITTANCE OF EPF DUES

CAN THE AUTHORITIES RESORT TO INITIATING IMPRISONMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE EXHAUSTING THE REMEDY OF REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS?

1

 

 

2

 LEGISLATURE MADE EMPLOYER PERSONALLY LIABLE ONLY IN THE EVENTOF PROPERTIES OF ESTABLISHMENT BEING INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE LIABILITY

HENCE RESORTING TO IMPRISONMENT BEFORE EXHAUSTING REMEDY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOT IN ORDER
4 GUJARAT CYPROMET LTD

VS

ASST PF COMMISSIONER

2005(1)
LLJ 484
[HC-GJ-SB]

OR

2004(103)
FLR 980

 1 IS EPF CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE ON ALLOWANCES SUCH AS MEDICAL ALLOWANCE,
CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE,
LUNCH ALLOWANCE ETC?

1

 

2

 

 

3

 

4

 AS PER SECTION 6 OF EPF ACT CONTRIBUTION IS PAYABL ON BASIC WAGES+DEARNESS ALLOWANCE AND RETAINING ALLOWANCE

THE TERM”BASIC WAGES”IS DEFINED IN SEC2 (b) &INCLUDE ALL ALLOWANCES EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IN DEFINITION

SEC2 (b) EXCLUDES ONLY FOLLOWING ALLOWANCES VIZ [CASH VALUE OF FOOD CONCESSION+OT ALLOWANCE, BONUS OR COMMISSION]

THEREFORE CONTRIBUTION IS PAYABLE ON ALL ALLOWANCES [EXCEPT ON THOSESPECIFICALLY EXCLUEDED]


Top

EPF   1999


the daily pratap

vs.

the regional provident fund commissioner, chandigarh [1998(80)flr 894 sc-db]

as per section 2(b) (ii) of the epf act, production bonus payments are excluded from the purview of “basic wages’ and no epf contributions are payable on the same. a company was paying a certain amount as production bonus without the workmen having to put in any extra output.  would such payments fall outside the purview of the term ‘basic wages’ under epf act ?

unless the workmen give extra output, such payments cannot be treated as production bonus for it TO fall outside the definition of “basic wages”. epf will be attracted on such payments.

d.c.m ltd

vs

r.p.f commissioner [1998 llr 532 hc-raj] madura coats

vs

regional provident fund commissioner, goa

will over time payments made to workers attract epf contributions ?

if payment is genuinely for extra hours worked it will be ot payment and fall outside the definition of basic wages as per section 2(b) of the epf act

if it is not for any extra work but only called ot allowance for payment purposes it will not fall outside the defenition of basic wages and epf will be payable.

[1998(80)flr 864 hc-bom-sb]

or

[1999(1) llj 928]

company had an exempted epf scheme and was permitting epf contribution on salaries above epf coverage limit. company  now wishes to peg the employer’s contribution  to the maximum coverage salary limit.  is this permissible ?

this cannot be done without applying to the government and obtaining fresh exemptions, as section 17(3)(b) requires employer not to reduce any benefit prevailing at the time of seeking exemption.