Dear Rajsingh,
With due respect to you and to your chair.
As stated by you " Airfreight Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. decided on 4 August, 1999 judgment is not related to the EPF as it is concerned with the minimum wages and that also regarding DA part inclusion in the Basic for the minimum wages.
As PF is deducted based on the Minimum Wages inclusive of DA declared by State OR Central Govt. from time to time for Schedule Employment under the Act and Apex Court has ruled that there is No infringement if Declared Minimum Wages Gross Amount is split in various components.
Further recently in the matter of MADRAS HC Order Dt 17.04.2018 in WP No 22127 of 2014 in the case of M/s Te-chest Composition India (P) Ltd. –Vs - The Regional PF Commissioner (C&R) Apex court in the same judgement has upheld the Airfright Judgement.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in none of the earlier judgments nor in the present judgment RPFC –II, West Bengal vs. Vivekanand Vidyamandir & others considered the scope of the words “or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment” under EPF Section 2(b)(ii).
It is not out of place to mention here that the review petition has been file by Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. EPF and other) against the judgement let hope Apex court will throw some light on EPF Sec 2(b) (ii)
Regard,
From India, Mumbai
16With due respect to you and to your chair.
As stated by you " Airfreight Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. decided on 4 August, 1999 judgment is not related to the EPF as it is concerned with the minimum wages and that also regarding DA part inclusion in the Basic for the minimum wages.
As PF is deducted based on the Minimum Wages inclusive of DA declared by State OR Central Govt. from time to time for Schedule Employment under the Act and Apex Court has ruled that there is No infringement if Declared Minimum Wages Gross Amount is split in various components.
Further recently in the matter of MADRAS HC Order Dt 17.04.2018 in WP No 22127 of 2014 in the case of M/s Te-chest Composition India (P) Ltd. –Vs - The Regional PF Commissioner (C&R) Apex court in the same judgement has upheld the Airfright Judgement.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in none of the earlier judgments nor in the present judgment RPFC –II, West Bengal vs. Vivekanand Vidyamandir & others considered the scope of the words “or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment” under EPF Section 2(b)(ii).
It is not out of place to mention here that the review petition has been file by Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. EPF and other) against the judgement let hope Apex court will throw some light on EPF Sec 2(b) (ii)
Regard,
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Khushboo vs Kanniammal - Supreme Court Judgment - A Perspective.doc
LTA Order of Supreme Court.pdf