hi
can anybody pl advise me for the below mentioned
our company has been depositing the employees pf amount of 12% on the basic salary which was above the limits beyond the basic salary of Rs 6500 ( eg if somebody basic salary was Rs 12,000/- than 12% on Rs 12000/- both employers and employees contribution deposted with the pf authority)
this practice was followed for very long time
now some lawyer have instructed the management to restrict the contribution of both the employees and employers should be reduce to the basic salary amounting to Rs 6500/-
can the management now reduce the contribution
if so, than what are the remedies available for both the management and the employees
pl advise
regards
alex
From India, Mumbai
can anybody pl advise me for the below mentioned
our company has been depositing the employees pf amount of 12% on the basic salary which was above the limits beyond the basic salary of Rs 6500 ( eg if somebody basic salary was Rs 12,000/- than 12% on Rs 12000/- both employers and employees contribution deposted with the pf authority)
this practice was followed for very long time
now some lawyer have instructed the management to restrict the contribution of both the employees and employers should be reduce to the basic salary amounting to Rs 6500/-
can the management now reduce the contribution
if so, than what are the remedies available for both the management and the employees
pl advise
regards
alex
From India, Mumbai
167
Dear Mr.Malik
I am new to cite HR. I have a query to be asked to you.
My employees are planning to contribute 12% volundary contribution, inaddition to statutory contribution of 12% with effect from June 2009.
If they plan to stop their volundary contribution in the future. IS IT POSSIBLE????
Regards
Selva
From India, Madras
I am new to cite HR. I have a query to be asked to you.
My employees are planning to contribute 12% volundary contribution, inaddition to statutory contribution of 12% with effect from June 2009.
If they plan to stop their volundary contribution in the future. IS IT POSSIBLE????
Regards
Selva
From India, Madras
HI
I DISAGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF SHRI MALIK AND ADVOCATE'S ADVICE IS RIGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND VERDICT OF THE HON. KERLA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF The North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Association.
HIREN CHHEDA
09821078457
From India, Mumbai
I DISAGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF SHRI MALIK AND ADVOCATE'S ADVICE IS RIGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND VERDICT OF THE HON. KERLA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF The North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Association.
HIREN CHHEDA
09821078457
From India, Mumbai
dear shri malik
i donot have full verdict but relevant paras are as under
When the employer had agreed for making contribution in excess of the statutory limits, it did not mean that it was forever. When the salary was revised or when the ceiling limits had been enhanced or modified naturally the employer was also entitled to reconsider or revise or withdraw from its earlier decision. Hence, I do not think that there was any prohibition under the Scheme for the management to withdraw from their earlier decision making the employer''s share of contribution in excess of the statutory limit or limiting the contribution to the statutory limits.
7. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was a prohibition under Section 12 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short, the EPF Act) from reducing the benefit which the employees were enjoying Section 12 of the Act reads.
"12. Employer not to reduce wages, etc.
No employer in relation to an establishment to which any Scheme or the insurance Scheme applies shall, by reason only of his liability for the payment of any contribution to the Fund or the Insurance Fund or any charges under this Act or the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, reduce whether directly or indirectly the wages of any employee to whom the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies or the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age pension, gratuity, provident fund or life insurance to which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment, express or implied:
Section 12 prohibit the employer from reducing the wages of the employee for avoiding his liability to pay contributions to the E.P.F. Scheme. It says that the employer should not reduce whether directly or indirectly, the benefits of the old age pension, gratuity, provident fund, life insurance etc. to which the employee was entitled under the terms of his employment express or implied. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a prohibition under Section 12 of the EPF Act that the employer should not reduce the benefits enjoyed by the employee either directly or indirectly and by reducing the employer''s share of contribution, the benefits which the employees were enjoying would be reduced. Section 12 imposes a prohibition from reducing the wages with an intent to, by reason only of his liability for the payment of contribution to the Scheme. It further says that the employer cannot reduce it directly or indirectly if by the terms of employment, the employee shall be entitled to such benefits. The petitioners had no case that the terms of employment was such that the employer had agreed to contribute to the EPF. Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. There was no case for the petitioners that the wage was reduced or that the terms of employment included such a concession that the employer shall make contributions to the Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. In the absence of any such allegation I do not think that Section 12 can have any application.
regards
hiren chheda
From India, Mumbai
i donot have full verdict but relevant paras are as under
When the employer had agreed for making contribution in excess of the statutory limits, it did not mean that it was forever. When the salary was revised or when the ceiling limits had been enhanced or modified naturally the employer was also entitled to reconsider or revise or withdraw from its earlier decision. Hence, I do not think that there was any prohibition under the Scheme for the management to withdraw from their earlier decision making the employer''s share of contribution in excess of the statutory limit or limiting the contribution to the statutory limits.
7. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was a prohibition under Section 12 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short, the EPF Act) from reducing the benefit which the employees were enjoying Section 12 of the Act reads.
"12. Employer not to reduce wages, etc.
No employer in relation to an establishment to which any Scheme or the insurance Scheme applies shall, by reason only of his liability for the payment of any contribution to the Fund or the Insurance Fund or any charges under this Act or the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, reduce whether directly or indirectly the wages of any employee to whom the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies or the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age pension, gratuity, provident fund or life insurance to which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment, express or implied:
Section 12 prohibit the employer from reducing the wages of the employee for avoiding his liability to pay contributions to the E.P.F. Scheme. It says that the employer should not reduce whether directly or indirectly, the benefits of the old age pension, gratuity, provident fund, life insurance etc. to which the employee was entitled under the terms of his employment express or implied. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a prohibition under Section 12 of the EPF Act that the employer should not reduce the benefits enjoyed by the employee either directly or indirectly and by reducing the employer''s share of contribution, the benefits which the employees were enjoying would be reduced. Section 12 imposes a prohibition from reducing the wages with an intent to, by reason only of his liability for the payment of contribution to the Scheme. It further says that the employer cannot reduce it directly or indirectly if by the terms of employment, the employee shall be entitled to such benefits. The petitioners had no case that the terms of employment was such that the employer had agreed to contribute to the EPF. Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. There was no case for the petitioners that the wage was reduced or that the terms of employment included such a concession that the employer shall make contributions to the Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. In the absence of any such allegation I do not think that Section 12 can have any application.
regards
hiren chheda
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Provident fund.zip
PROVIDENT FUND.rar
PROVIDENT FUND.doc