Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

"Supreme Court Clarifies 'Basic Wage' Definition, Dismisses Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner's Appeal"

04 September 2024 11:13 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, terming it "meritless." The case, which had been closely watched by legal experts and employers alike, centered on the definition of 'basic wage' for provident fund contributions.

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner had appealed against a judgment dated July 20, 2011, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The original issue stemmed from an order dated June 15, 2009, by the Appellate Tribunal under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act).

The appellant argued that M/S G4S Security Services (India) Ltd. & ANR were "wrongly splitting the wage structure of the employees and treating the reduced wage as the basic wage, thereby evading its liability to contribute the correct amount towards the provident fund."

The Court, however, was unequivocal in its stance. It stated, "In our opinion, once the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining the words 'basic wage' (under Section 2b), then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect the Court to have traveled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislature."

This judgment is significant as it clarifies the legal framework around provident fund contributions and sets a precedent for how 'basic wage' should be defined under the EPF Act. Employers and employees across sectors will likely be impacted by this clarification.

The Court also noted that a similar issue had been considered and accepted by the appellant department in the past, further emphasizing the lack of merit in the current appeal.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has put to rest ambiguities surrounding the definition of 'basic wage' for provident fund contributions, thereby impacting the landscape of employment law in India.

Date of Decision: August 17, 2023

ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs M/S G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. & ANR

Latest Legal News