text: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (“Commissioner“) ordered that the amount received on encashment of earned leave has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of “basic wage” under Section 2(b) of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act“). Accordingly, Respondent raised demands for provident fund contribution from the Appellant. The Appellant then preferred an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal“) which held that amount received on encashment of earned leave does not form part of basic wages.
  The Respondent then filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, where the court relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Employees’ Union v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. [1995 (2) LLJ. 279] and set aside the the impugned order of the Tribunal.
  Issue
  Whether the amount received by encashing the earned leave is a part of “basic wage” under Section 2(b) of the requiring pro rata employer’s contribution.
  Contentions
  Appellant:
  The above judgment cannot be sustained as it merely followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court. A different view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. and Ors. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds Organisation decided on 12.10.2007;
  Controversy has been settled long back in Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. Union of India [1963(2)SCR978] which was also followed in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [(1963) IILLJ72 SC];
  Concept of beneficial legislation is not applicable where the statutes and principles underlying it are clear and the question is no longer res integra (an entirely new or untouched matter).
  Respondent:
  Even applying Bridge Roof’s case (supra) the view taken by the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court reflects the correct position of law.
  Held
  W.r.t Contention 1 of Appellant:
  The Supreme Court differentiated the above decision of Bombay High Court from the present case based on the peculiar factual scenario of that case, which I am not discussing here for the sake of brevity.
  Whether the amount received by encashing the earned leave is a part of “basic wage” under Section 2(b) of the requiring pro rata employer’s contribution?
  The Apex Court reiterated the basic principles as laid down in Bridge Roof’s case (supra) on a combined reading of Sections 2(b) and 6 of the Act as follows:
  Where the wage is universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all across the board such emoluments are basic wages.
  Where the payment is available to be specially paid to those who avail of the opportunity is not basic wages.
  Conversely, any payment by way of a special incentive or work is not basic wages.
  Supreme Court then referred to its judgment in T.I. Cycles of India, Ambattur v. M.K. Gurumani and Ors. [(2001)IILLJ1068SC] to reaffirm that incentive wages paid in respect of extra work done is to be excluded from the basic wage as they have a direct nexus and linkage with the amount of extra output. Supreme Court further quoted from this case that any amount of contribution cannot be based on different contingencies and uncertainties. The test is one of universality. In the case of encashment of leave the option may be available to all the employees but some may avail and some may not avail. That does not satisfy the test of universality.
  In many cases the employees do not take leave and encash it at the time of retirement or same is encashed after his death which can be said to be uncertainties and contingencies. Though provisions have been made for the employer for such contingencies unless the contingency of encashing the leave is there, the question of actual payment to the workman does not take place. Therefore, in view of the above decisions of this Court in Bridge Roof’s case (supra) and T.I. Cycles’s case (supra), the inevitable conclusion is that basic wage was never intended to include amounts received for leave encashment.
  W.r.t Contention 3 of Appellant:
  Supreme Court further added that though the statute in question is a beneficial one, the concept of beneficial legislation becomes relevant only when two views are possible.
  Author: Vivek Verma
  Image from here
  Post Tags: #Basic Wage#beneficial legislation#bifurcation of basic wage#Bridge and Roof Co.#Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act#Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal#Hindustan Lever Employees' Union#incentive wages#Jay Engineering Works Ltd.#Karnataka High Court#leave#leave encashment#PF contribution#Provident Fund#provident fund contribution#Regional Provident Fund Commissioner#rules of interpretation#Supreme Court#test of universality#Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd.
  Post navigation
  Previous Previous
  Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI)
  Next Continue
  Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner vs. G4S Security Services (India) Ltd. and Anr.
  Similar Posts
  Labour Laws
  Benchmark Infocom (P) Ltd. vs. RPFC
  ByAnkit Rastogi April 13, 2017
  Citation: MANU/EP/0002/2011 Decided On: 02.06.2011 Court: Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Facts The EPF Authority (“Authority“) initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act“) and alleged that the Appellant was not paying the minimum wages to its employees required under the Minimum Wages Act….
  Read More Continue
  Labour Laws
  Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund and Anr.
  ByAnkit Rastogi May 15, 2017
  Citation: 2011 LLR 867 Decided on: 24.03.2011 Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Facts The Petitioner-company was remitting the provident fund contribution of eligible employees in accordance with the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952 (‘Act’) and the Scheme and it was deducting provident fund contribution on two components of salary, i.e., Basic + VDA (dearness…
  Read More Continue
  Labour Laws
  Airfreight Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
  ByAnkit Rastogi April 13, 2017
  Citation: AIR 1999 SC 2459 Decided On: August 04, 1999 Judges: D.P. Wadhwa and M.B. Shah, JJ. Facts: The State Govt. of Karnataka issued a notification dated 19.08.1987 (“Notification“) under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act (“Act“) fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories of employees for “shops and commercial establishments”….
  Read More Continue
  Procedural
  Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan
  ByVivek Kumar Verma October 19, 2013 September 24, 2020
  Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan (2007) 9 SCC 755 Key Words: shall, directory, mandatory, substantive, procedural, prejudice, non-compliance Facts: Respondent herein was employed as a helper of Appellant. A criminal complaint was lodged against him for alleged commission of theft. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceeding, he…
  Read More Continue
  Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark
  National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.
  ByAnkit Rastogi July 29, 2015
  National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. PTC (Suppl) (1) 475 (SC) Full Bench Brief Facts: Appellant, was a company registered in India. Respondent was a company registered in England carrying business of manufacturing cotton sewing thread. One of the trade marks used by the Respondent on such thread consisted of…
  Read More Continue
  Difference Between | Labour Laws
  Difference between a ‘Contract Labourer’ and an ‘Employee’
  ByVivek Kumar Verma April 21, 2016 September 24, 2020
  What does the term ‘contract labour’ means? The term ‘contract labour’ under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (“CLRA“) means a workman who is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by or through a contractor. It is important to note that the word, ‘hire’, as used in the Act, has…
  Read More Continue
  Leave a Reply Cancel reply
  Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
  Comment *
  Name *
  Email *
  Website
  Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
  Categories
  Categories Select Category aaLAWchak Agency Arbitration Law Articles Bailment Banking Law Basic Principles of Contract Case List Case List-Contracts Case List-IPR Case List-Technology Competition Law Constitution Law Contract Law Copyright Copyright Article Corporate Law Cyber Defamation Data Protection Design Difference Between Digital Rights Disparagement Domain Names FLIPSTAAN Governing Law & Jurisdiction ICL Exclusive Indemnity and Guarantee Intellectual Property Rights Intermediaries/ISPs Internet & Privacy Interpretation of Contracts Interpretation of Statutes Labour Laws LEXpressions Linking & Metatagging Parallel Import Partnership Passing Off Patent Personality Rights Procedural Property Law Sale of Goods Tax Law Technology Law Trade Mark Trade Secrets Uncategorized
  Archives
  Archives Select Month December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 January 2020 December 2019 July 2019 June 2019 January 2019 April 2018 February 2018 September 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 February 2013 January 2013 July 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012