Date of Order:
August 17, 2023
Bench:
.................J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
..................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
Parties:
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
[APPELLANT]
VERSUS
M/S GAS SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) LTD.
& ANR.
[RESPONDENTS]
SUBJECT
- The judgement dated July 20, 2011, rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh, in an intra-Court Appeal1, against the order dated February 1, 2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is to the appellant’s dissatisfaction.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
- Section 7A
- Section 2(b)
Minimum pay Act of 1948
- Section 4
OVERVIEW
- In order to address the issue raised by the respondents regarding the liability of the Management under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the appellant had challenged the order dated June 15, 2009, passed by the Appellate Tribunal before the learned Single Judge.
- The appellant challenged the Appellate Tribunal’s order on management’s liability under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 19523. The appellant argued that respondent no.1 wrongly split employee wages and treated reduced wages as basic wages, evading their liability to contribute the correct amount. The Appellate Tribunal and Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appellant’s stand.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the manner in which the wages were split was unfair under the Minimum Wages Act?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The claim made by the appellant is that Respondent No. 1 wrongly divided the employees’ pay structures by using the lower wage as the basic wage in order to determine its contribution to the provident fund.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- According to Section 4 of the Minimum pay Act of 1948, changes must be made to the definition of the phrase "minimum rate of wages."
- This issue was addressed in paragraph 6 of the challenged judgement, which rejected the argument that the definitions of "basic wage" and "minimum wage" under the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 must be equivalent.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- Once the EPF Act provides a defined definition of the phrase "basic wage" (under Section 2b), the appellant had no reason to believe that the Court would have gone to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a new or more expansive meaning as was argued. Clearly, the lawmakers did not intend for it to happen.
CONCLUSION
- In light of the present case, the appellant department had accepted a similar order dated May 23, 2002, which was not taken in appeal.
- The same was dismissed as meritless and no costs orders were to be issued.
