Judgements

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9284 OF 2013

Minimum Wages can be splitted into Basic & HRA.

Honourable Supreme Court of India vide SLP 13351 of 2018, stayed ESIC Contribution on Construction Activities

Trackon Courier v/s RPFC

W.P (MD) No. 20338 of 2014

Detailed Order by Hon'ble Dehli High Court

WP 4973 of 2021; High Court of Bombay

Kulgaon Badlapur Nagar Parishad v/s the RPFC II.

W.P.(C) 9530/2020 & CM APPL. 30575-76/2020

Honourable Delhi High Court stated that Central Provident Fund Commissioner shall pass immediate practice directions in respect of uploading of all orders which are passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners (RPFCs), Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners (APFCs), Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and any other officials/authorities who adjudicate disputes.

Conveyance/Travelling Allowance not to be consider as Wages under Sec. 2(22) of ESIC.

EPF Authority must ensure that proper oppotunity of hearing is given to Employer.

Himgiri Automobiles v/s RPFC-II

W.P.(C) 3243/2020 & CM APPLs. 11296-98/2020- Delhi High Court

Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs Union Of India on 11 September, 1962

Court Stated:

“(a) Where the wage is universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all across the board, such emoluments are basic wages.

(b) Where the payment is available to be specially paid to those who avail of the opportunity is not basic wages. By way of example, it was held that overtime allowance, though it is generally in force in all concerns is not earned by all employees of a concern. It is also earned in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment but because it may not be earned by all employees of a concern, it is excluded from basic wages.

(c) Conversely, any payment by way of a special incentive or work is not basic wages.”

M/s. Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

[CIVIL Appeal No. 721 of 2013]

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J

1. The present civil appeal arises from the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 17th January, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 4013 of 2011. The High Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellant, which had assailed the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') dated 8th April, 2011 whereby it was held that the appellant is deemed to have defaulted in depositing the provident fund contributions of 16 (sixteen) of its part-time employees.

2. Before dealing with the legal submissions and issues, it would be apposite to set out the factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeal: The appellant is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and runs 29 (twenty nine) schools and junior colleges in the Wardha District, Nagpur. Out of which, 28 (twenty eight) schools and colleges purportedly received 100% grant-in aid from the State Government. Between 1996 and 1997, due to administrative exigency 16 part-time librarians were appointed to some of the appellant's colleges, with the permission/approval of the State Government.

These librarians worked for lesser hours as opposed to the working hours put in by regular, full-time employees. The appellant contends that the entire process of appointment and approval was monitored and supervised by the State Government. Further, the appellant did not possess any direct control over the payment of or deductions to the salaries of its employees. It is done by the State Authorities. On 5th May, 1998, the appellant forwarded a bill of one of the part-time librarians to the Education Officer, with a request to deduct the provident fund. This request was declined vide a letter dated 19th November, 1998, with a direction not to deduct provident fund contributions of such part- time employees. Subsequently, on 5th March, 2004, the Director of Education issued a letter clarifying that the contributory provident fund scheme was not applicable to such part-time employees.

The Petitioner is an engineering company manufacturing automobile parts. Respondent No.1 is a trade union representing workmen engaged by the Petitioner through contractors purportedly under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are said to be licensed contractors through whom workmen are engaged. The dispute in the present petition concerns employment of about 31 employees engaged by the Petitioner through Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The agreements for supply of contract labour, under which these workmen 1 / 13 sat wp 3376-2017.doc were employed purportedly as contract labour and were working for various periods between 8 to 15 years, were not renewed in the year 2004 by the Petitioner. At that stage, on or about 6 September 2004, Respondent No.1 Union sent demand letters to the Petitioner demanding that 31 employees engaged by the Petitioner through Respondent Nos.2 to 4 be treated as direct and permanent employees of the Petitioner from the dates of their respective appointments and all benefits be given to them as in the case of other permanent/regular employees working in the Petitioner establishment. The demands were referred to the conciliation officer. Upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai. It was the case of the Respondent union before the Industrial Tribunal that the contracts for supply of labour purportedly entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were sham and bogus and that for all purposes and intents, these 31 employees were entitled to be treated as direct and permanent employees with effect from the dates of their respective appointments and getting all service benefits including wages as in the case of permanent employees of the Petitioner. On the other hand, it was the case of the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the workmen were employees of the contractors; they were paid wages, and supervised, by the latter; and there was no master-servant relationship between the Petitioner and the workmen. Both sides led oral and documentary evidence. The Industrial Tribunal, in its impugned order, declared that these alleged contractual employees be treated as direct employees of the Petitioner from the dates of their appointment and all benefits, including wages and allowances as in the case of permanent employees of the Petitioner, be extended to them. Being aggrieved by this award, the Petitioner has approached this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of 2 / 13 sat wp 3376-2017.doc India, assailing the impugned award.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to award dated 11.05.2010, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court in Ref. No. 125 of 2003, vide which, learned Labour Court has answered the Reference in favour of the workman in following terms:

"As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and it is ordered that he (petitioner) be reinstated in service, with seniority and continuity but without back wages, from the date of his termination i.e. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

21.01.1995. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in .

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellant submits that they are not averse to an amicable settlement. Signature Not Verified What is the offer Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH for settling the dispute between the parties shall be informed on Date: 2018.04.25 17:16:38 IST Reason:

the next date.

We make it clear that while making the offer it shall be borne in mind that the compensation for lumpsum payment will be from the date of cessation of employment till the date of superannuation of the employees concerned as the management was under a liability to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Post tomorrow i.e. Wednesday, the 25th April, 2018.

The petitioner 'Gond wana Club' is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The object of the petitioner-Club is to provide for social entertainment and physical and mental recreation of its members. In furtherance of the said object, the petitioner-club provides facilities for games, sports and other amenities, as may be desirable for the achievement of the object. The petitioner-Club has a reading room, library, swimming pool, table tennis tables, tennis court, gymnasium as also billiards tables with which we are concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Club is run on the principles of mutuality that exclude the charge-ability of entertainment duty or tax under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act. According to the petitioner Club, the facilities provided by the club are meant only for its members, as per the rules of the club. 

The petitioner, M/s. G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited has challenged the legality of the order dated 02.01.2018, the attachment order issued by the respondent No.1, against the petitioner. Thepetitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2017, passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the respondent No.1 has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of `16,31,58,755/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore Thirty-One Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred & Fifty-five only), under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short).

This litigation depicts a very sad picture of persons who are supposed to have dedicated their lives to the cause of spreading the message of love and harmony in the name of Jesus Christ and purporting to be holy evangelists but actually indulging in acrimonious quarrels and in fights of attrition running after the power of office ignoring the duty of service attached thereto. The fact that there are so many litigations in different courts in the state speaks volumes of their failings as human beings and their inability to practice what is preached by them to the common folk whom they describe compendiously as "flocks". It is quite obvious that none of them remembers the command of their Lord "Go ye and make disciples of all nations".

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Suhas C.Sen Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao Harish N.Salve, Sr.Adv., Rajesh Malhotra, Dalip Kumar Malhotra, Advs. with him for the appellant Soli J.Sorabjee, Iqbal Chaqla, Kirit Rawal, Sr. Advs., R.Karanjawala, S.Ganesh, Ms, Ruby Ahuja, . Arunabh Chawdhury, and Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Advs. with them for the Respondents, J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,:.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. has filed this Civil Appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Act. 1969 thereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission thereinafter called the Commission). The order is dated 576 November, 1997 and is passed in Injunction Application No. 336 of 1997 filed in the Main Case No. 405 of 1997.

The two respondents are colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and Miss Pallavi S. Desai. The said respondents were the complainants 1 and 2 respectively in the main case No. 4054 of 1997 which is pending before the Commission . By virtue of the impugned order, certain directions in the nature of temporary injunction have been granted in favour of the respondents complainants and against the appellant. It is to be noted further that the Commission., which directed a panel of experts to give it its onion on the issue involved, made it clear that the order that was being passed was a "temporary interim order "be and a final order on the injunction Application would be passed later after receiving the opinion at the experts.

The center was established by DGCA in 1948 and now it is a part of the Airports Authority of India. It is the pioneer institute in India which has been imparting training in various aviation fields. It's main training areas are concerned with CNS technology and the Air Traffic Management. This center was renamed as Civil Aviation Training College (CATC) and it has been a member of the ICAO TRAINAIR program which guides the aviation training throughout the world. Ever since it's establishment it had been the main source of production of technical personnel in the CNS and ATM fields.

The Civil Aviation Training College (CATC) at Bamrauli Allahabad and its extensions one at National Institute of Aviation Training and Management (NIATAM) at Gondia in Maharashtra and second at Shamshabad Airport Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh are providing training courses for air traffic control officers (ATCO’s) and CNS Electronic safety officers in the field of CNS streams in India. At present the training course of new ATCO is in two phases; the first phase is Aerodrome Control, the second phase is Approach Control and 12 weeks each.

There is no doubt that the appellant had made payment of his provident fund dues under Section 7A of The Employees' Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 belatedly. Under Section 14(B) thereof damages are payable by the employer for this delay. The said Act read with the Provident Fund Scheme 1952 provide the mode in which this damage is to be computed.

S.D. In relation to a particular period on 20th September, 2016 the provident fund authority proceeded to make a final assessment straightway of this damage according to the calculation made in the Act and Scheme asking the appellant to make the entire deposit. By another adjudication order passed on the same day against the appellant, in respect of another period, the said authority proceeded to make a calculation of the damages payable by the appellant based on the said principle.

The appellant, aggrieved by this decision approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by preferring a writ application. This Court by an interim order dated 28th November, 2017 noted that the appellant/writ petitioner had made out a prima facie case for passing of an interim order but directed him to deposit Rs.30,000,00/- with the provident fund authority within two weeks. On deposit of the sum, the said two demands would remain stayed. For two weeks there would be unconditional stay.