Skip to main content

RECKLESS SPLITTING OF WAGES INTO ALLOWANCES FOR EPF WILL COST DEARLY TO THE EMPLOYERS-- LLR


RECKLESS SPLITTING OF WAGES INTO ALLOWANCES FOR EPF WILL COST DEARLY TO THE EMPLOYERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labour Law Reporter has been persistently warning the subscribers to adopt protective wage structure in view of the judgments of High Courts upholding all allowances except HRA will form part of basic wages for EPF contributions.  Now the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 28.2.2019 reported in 2019 LLR 399. has upheld the judgments of the High Courts.  An appeal by EPFO against judgment of Calcutta High Court has been accepted by the Supreme Court holding that special allowance will also form the part of wages for EPF contributions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            While issuing the appointment letters to the employees the employers' recklessness is found to be most shocking. The discrepancy with regard to the splitting of many allowances speaks volumes about the glaring irresponsibility. As a result of it, the employers are often caught in the dragnet of the PF authorities, who derive perverted pleasure in harassing them. It is seen that some employers split the wages into allowances without considering as to what for that allowance is given.

For instance, special allowance is invariably even by the employers, in addition to basic wages, but when questioned as what is the speciality for giving a special allowance, no valid clarification is offered.  

While coming across such anomalies the 'Labour Law Reporter' had been exhorting subscribers particular employers covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & MP Act, that these allowances can create problem for them since Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts have held that all the allowances other than house rent allowance would attract provident fund contributions. Despite that many employers have not cared to rectify. Now the Supreme Court has upheld the judgments of the above High Courts including that of Calcutta High Court holding that special allowance will attract provident fund contributions. This may lead to heavy financial liability in addition to interest, damages, even prosecutions and loss of face for the organisation. 

Hence, instead of recklessly adopting the wage structure of any other establishment, the employers must consider as to whether it would be excluded under the Employees' Provident Funds & MP Act for attracting contributions and also if there is any supporting justification.  Accordingly, the Labour Law Reporter in the interest of the subscribers cautions the employers to revise their wages structures particularly those who are covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & MP Act.

For full judgment visit : www.labourlawreporter.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY MODEL BYE LAWS 1 TO 100

MODEL BYE – LAWS OF COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (Tenant Co‐Partnership Housing Society ) 2014 1 I.PRELIMINARY 3 a. The Name of the Society bye Law no 1. a 3 c. The Society is classification bye Law no 1. c 3 a. The registered address of the Society bye Law no 2. a 3 II. INTERPRETATIONS BY E LAW NO 3 3 III. AREA OF OPERATION BYE LAW NO 4 6 IV. OBJECTS 7 5. The objects of the Society bye Law no 5 7 V. AFFILIATION BYE LAW NO 6 7 VI. FUNDS, THEIR UTILISATION AND INVESTMENT 7 ( A ) Raising of Funds bye law no 7 7 (B)Share Capital bye law no 8 8 (C) Limit of Liabilities bye law no 11 8 (D) Constitution of the Reserve Fund bye Law no 12 8 (E) Creation of Other Funds bye law no 13 a. b. c. d. 9 b. Major Repairs Funds bye law no 13 b. 9 (F) Utilisation of the Funds by the Society bye law no 14 9 a. Reserve Fund bye law no 14 a 9 b. Repairs and Maintenance Fund bye law no 14 b 9 c. Sinking Fund bye law no 14 c 9 (G) Investment of Funds

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BYE LAWS 101 TO END

MCS BYE LAWS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST 101 TO END 101. If all the business on the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Society cannot be transacted on the day on which the General Body Meeting is convened, the meeting shall be postponed to any other suitable date as may be decided by the Members present at the meeting, however not later than 30 days from the date of the meeting. 102. The Chairman of the Society shall preside over all General Body Meetings of the Society, in case if the Chairman is absent or if present and is unwilling to preside, the Members present may elect a person from amongst themselves to preside over the meeting. 103. No proxy or a holder of power of attorney or letter of authority shall be eligible to attend a General Body Meeting of the Society on behalf of a Member of the Society. 104. Voting right of a Member and the Associate Member of the Society shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of

Mere Abusive Language not a serious misconduct to inflict capital punishment - Madras High Court in Worker vs Hindustan Unilever Limited

Important Points: Alleged Misconduct: The Worker barged into the shop floor, where the Production Manager and H.R.Executives were holding a meeting with the operators of Hassia Machine;  b) he disrupted the meeting and started abusive language against the Executives and the Manager and scolded the Executive by name Sundaram in a filthy language and c) he also intimidated him by holding him by his shift collar, thereby created an unpleasant atmosphere Long ago, there was prior incident of misconduct. HC's View and reference to series of judgements: - Use of abusive language by itself cannot constitute a serious misconduct fit for capital punishment - The context and the provocations to be borne in mind while determining the punishment - The Class of the work-men and the abuse to be considered from the level where he came from    and also the time lapse which can unwound the harm if any caused - Consider the age of workmen, duration of the dispute  and the feasibility of he getting e