Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1416/2016] Together with Premier Rubber Mills vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1969/2016] Decided on: April 11, 2017 Court: High Court of Delhi Facts In this case, Petitioners’ request for inspection of records and supply of certified copies of documents was…
Incentive bonus or production bonus and is excluded from the definition of basic wages under Section 2(b) of EPF Act and should not be considered for the purpose of provident fund contribution.
NCLT has jurisdiction over all winding up proceedings, including, inter alia, winding up on the ground of inability to pay debt, where such petition is served to a respondent after 15th December, 2016. For all other winding up petitions served before 15th December, 2016, High Court will continue to have jurisdiction.
Citation: Appeal No. 13/2016 with I.A. No. 08/2017 Decided on: 10.04.2017 Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal Facts Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (Appellant/ KFCC) filed an appeal against the order passed by Competition Commission of India (“CCI“). CCI had imposed the penalty on Appellant and other two associations namely Karnataka Television Association (“KTVA“) and Kannada Film…
Citation: AIR 2006 SC 3517 Decided on: 13.02.2006 Court: Supreme Court of India Facts The appellants were holding land in excess of the limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Act, 1973, (“Act“). The surplus land was surrendered by them which had fruit bearing cashew nut tree plantation. It is to…
Receipt of tips by the staff cannot be considered as anything like a payment made by the Management to its employees
Whether conveyance allowance and special allowance can form part of basic wages for the purpose of determination of provident fund contribution.
Whether the payment of ‘Saturday Allowance/Special Allowance’ will form part of the basic wages and accordingly be counted for the provident fund contribution.
Citation: 2012 LLR 22 Decided On: 20.09.2011 Court: High Court of Delhi Facts Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad (Haryana) (“Commissioner“) initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & M.P. Act, 1952 (“Act“) against the Petitioner on the ground that Petitioner had allegedly violated the Act by not depositing provident fund contributions on…
Citation: 2011 LLR 316 Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Decided On: 01.02.2011 Facts Respondent-company, for the purposes of determining its contribution under Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act“), was taking into consideration the basic wage as given to its employees. The Petitioner claimed that rates of minimum wages which ought…
Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1951 Court: Supreme Court Decided on: 12.03.2008 Facts Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (“Commissioner“) ordered that the amount received on encashment of earned leave has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of “basic wage” under Section 2(b) of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act“). Accordingly, Respondent raised…
Citation: AIR1963SC1474 Decided On: 11.09.1962 Court: Supreme Court Facts The Appellant-company had a production bonus scheme in force which provided for payment of production bonus over and above wages fixed. Production bonus was to be paid on certain rates specified in the relevant scheme when the output reaches certain number of tons (say, x tons)…