28 Aug 2023 1:50 PM GMT
The Supreme dismissed an appeal by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner against an order of a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that when the term ‘basic wage’ has been described under Section 2(b) of the Employee Provident Fund Act 1952, there is no need to make a reference to definition of ‘minimum rate of wages’ under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to give it a more expansive meaning.
The case of the appellant was that for the purposes of determining the amount to be paid towards the provident fund, the employer (respondent in the appeal) had wrongly split the wage structure and treated the reduced wage as the basic wage in an attempt to evade paying the correct amount towards provident fund. This was to the detriment of the employees, according to the appellant.
However, the Appellate Tribunal, single bench and division bench of the High Court had rejected the Appellant’s contention.
A division bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal while dismissing the appeal observed:
Additional Solicitor General, Vikramjeet Banerjee had argued before the Apex Court that for determining the basic wage under the EPF Act, the ‘minimum rate of wages’ under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 must be referred to. However, the Apex Court rejected this contention, agreeing with the High Court’s view that ‘basic wage’ need not be equated with ‘minimum wage’: