LexTHE DAILY PRATAP versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c THE DAILY PRAT AP v. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OCTOBER 29, 1998 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1959: Preamble-Held, Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation. Section 2(b) Exception (ii) and Section 6-Definition of"basic wages"- Applicability of-Production Bonus Scheme-Extra payment made to workmen under Production Bonus Scheme-Employer under Exception (ii) of Section 2(b) and hence no provident fund contribution was required to be payable on such extra payment-Held, extra payment under the Sr;heme made at a flat D rate and not on sliding scale proportionate to extra output-Such payment was not exempted from provident fund contribution-Thus, Exception (ii) not attracted-Extra payment made under the said Scheme cannot also be treated as an incentive allowance. Words and phrases-Words "wages" and "basic wages"-Meaning of- E In the context of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1959. Practice and Procedure: Writ petition before the High Court-Advocate General appearing for F Provident Fund Commissioner in an earlier writ petition conceded that appellants were not required to contribute provident fund on payment on Production Bonus amount paid to the workmen-However, it was made clear that appellants were required to deposit provident fund on the "wages" as defined under the Act-Held, such concession not binding in subsequent G petition-More so, Advocate General had not given the concession in absolute term that appellants were not liable to contribute any part of the disputed amount towards provident fond or that it never fell within the definition of the word "wages"-Constitution of India, Article 226-Emp/oyees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1959, Section 2(b). H Jurisdiction-Authorities constituted under the Act-Contribution by 482 THE DAILY PRAT AP v. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMR. 483 appellants to provident fund on payment to Production Bonus Scheme- A Authorities under the Act sought to recover the contribution towards provident fund on such payments made by the appellant-Challenged in writ petition-- Held, whether such payment fell within the ambit of definition of "wages" had to be decided by the Authorities under the Act in a refand application filed before it-Administrative Law-Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous B Provisions Act, 1959. Appellants, carrying on the business of printing of newspaper, were alleged to have not remitted their contributions along with the share of their employees to the extent of the amounts paid by them by way of Production Bonus. On a demand being made, the same was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that amounts were C paid to the concerned employees under the relevant Production Bonus Scheme and thus were not liable to remit contribution for the same as per Section 6 of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. In the said writ petition the then Advocate General conceded before the High Court that the appellants were not required to deposit the provident fund D on the Production Bonus; appellants may deposit provident fund only on "wages" as defined under the Act; and that the appellants may apply to the respondent for refund of amount deposited in respect of Production Bonus and the same would be decided by the authorities. After the hearing, respondent authorities took the view that the disputed amounts for such contributions were asked for under Section 6 of the Act from the appellants E and were part of "basic wages" and no such Production Bonus Scheme was existing in the appellants' concern. Consequently the claim of applicability of Section 6 of the Act to the appellants was rejected. This was again challenged by appellants before the High Court in a writ petition and the same was dismissed. It was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court. F Hence this appeal. It was contended by the appellants that in the earlier writ petition the Advocate General had conceded that the appellants were not required to contribute provident fund on Productfon Bonus, and hence the authorities had no jurisdiction to go beyond the order of the High Court that; the G authorities committed a patent error of law in taking the view that the scheme in question was not a Production Bonus Scheme and that the amount p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.