Case Law Details
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs G4s Security Services (India) Ltd. & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction: In the case of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs G4s Security Services (India) Ltd. & Anr., the Supreme Court of India addresses the differentiation between the ‘basic wage’ as defined by the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Act and the ‘minimum wage’ under the Minimum Wages Act. The appellant contests the interpretation of ‘basic wage’ that impacts provident fund contributions.
1. Background: The appellant challenges a judgment from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which originated from a writ petition against an order by the Appellate Tribunal. The issue involves the splitting of wage structure by the respondent (G4s Security Services) to determine provident fund contributions.
2. Appellant’s Argument: The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner argues that the ‘basic wage’ definition in the EPF Act aligns with the ‘minimum rate of wages’ definition in the Minimum Wages Act. This linkage is rejected by the courts.
3. Court’s Perspective: The court opines that the EPF Act explicitly defines ‘basic wage’ under Section 2b, negating the need to interpret it based on the Minimum Wages Act. The legislative intent was to maintain a specific meaning for ‘basic wage.’
4. Precedent: The court mentions a previous case (dated 23rd May, 2002) involving the same issue, where the APFC’s order was accepted by the appellant department without appeal.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, asserting that the EPF Act’s definition of ‘basic wage’ should not be conflated with the ‘minimum wage’ under the Minimum Wages Act. The court emphasizes the legislative intent to provide a distinct interpretation for ‘basic wage.’ This judgment affirms the significance of adhering to the specific definitions within the EPF Act while determining provident fund contributions.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The appellant-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th July, 2011, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in an intra-Court Appeal1, which was directed against the order dated 01st February, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition2 filed by the appellant.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had impugned the order dated 15th June, 2009, passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 19523, while determining the issue raised by the respondents regarding the liability of the Management under the provisions of Section 7A of the EPF Act. The stand of the appellant is that for the purposes of determining its contribution towards provident fund, the respondent no.1 was wrongly splitting the wage structure of the employees and treating the reduced wage as the basic wage to the detriment of the employees, thereby evading its liability to contribute the correct amount towards provident fund. The aforesaid stand taken by the appellant has been turned down by the Appellate Tribunal as also by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that for the purposes of determining the basic wage under the EPF Act, reference must be made to the definition of the expression ‘minimum rate of wages’ under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This aspect has been considered in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and turned down holding that there was no compulsion to hold the definition of ‘basic wage’ to be equated with the definition of ‘minimum wage’ under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
4. 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 travelled 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.
5. It is also pertinent to note that a similar issue had come up for consideration in the order dated 23rd May, 2002, passed by the APFC under Section 7A of the EPF Act, that was duly accepted by the appellant department as the said order was not taken in appeal.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 17, 2023.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Notes:
1 LPA No. 1139 of 2011 (O&M)
2 CWP No. 15443 of 2009 (O&M)
3 Hereinafter referred as ‘EPF Act’
