Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)
Deepak Nitrite Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & on 3 April, 2017 cites

Ti Cycles Of India, Amattur vs M.K.Gurumani & Ors on 24 August, 2001

"In TI Cycles of India, Ambattur v. M.K. Gurumani and  Ors.   (2001   (7)   SCC   204)   it   was   held   that  incentive  wages   paid   in   respect   of   extra   work   done   is   to   be  excluded   from   the   basic   wage   as   they   have   a   direct  nexus   and   linkage   with   the   amount   of   extra   output."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Jay Engineering Works Ltd And Others vs The Union Of India And Others on 12 December, 1962

He   also  submitted that the respondent No.1 has not dealt  with and/or decided the contentions raised by the  petitioner and the respondent No.1 passed cryptic  order   without   dealing   with   and   deciding   the  contentions   raised   by   the   petitioner.   He   also  submitted   that   the   respondent   No.1   erred   in  construing clause 17 in holding that such amount  is   liable   for   contribution.   Learned   senior  counsel for the petitioner further submitted that  respondent   No.1   erred   in   holding   that   the   said  incentive is nothing but part of regular wage. So  as   to   support   his   submissions,   learned   counsel  for   the   petitioner   relied   on   the   decisions   in  case of  Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs. Union of   India   [AIR   1963   SC   1480],   The   Daily   Partap   vs.   The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab,   Haryana,   Himachal   Pradesh   and   Union   Territory,   8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 47 Created On Tue Apr 04 00:38:56 IST 2017 C/SCA/1313/2011 CAV JUDGMENT Chandigarh   [AIR   1999   SC   2015],   TI   Cycles   of   India,   Ambattur   vs.   M.K.   Gurumani   &   Others   [(2001)   7   SCC   204],   Associated   Cement   Co.   Ltd.   vs.   R.M.   Gandhi,   Regional   Provident   Fund   Commissioner, Gujarat & Ors. [1991 (2) GLR 1286],   Manipal Academy of Higher Education vs. Provident   Fund Commissioner [(2008) 5 SCC 428]. 5.1 Per   contra   Ms.   Shailaja,   learned  advocate for the respondents submitted that there  is no error or illegality in the order passed by  respondent No.1 and/or in the order passed by the  learned Tribunal. She submitted that in light of  the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jay   Engineering  and   the   decision   by   Hon'ble   Apex  Court in case of Delly Pratap, the claim of the  petitioner   is   not   sustainable   and   actually   the  amount   paid   allegedly   as   incentive   is   part   of  wages defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. She  further   submitted   that   in   his   order,   respondent  No.1   has   extensively   dealt   with   all   contentions  raised   by   the   petitioner   and   relevant   provision  9 HC-NIC Page 9 of 47 Created On Tue Apr 04 00:38:56 IST 2017 C/SCA/1313/2011 CAV JUDGMENT under   the   Scheme   as   well   as   the   decisions   on  which   the   petitioner   placed   reliance.   She  submitted   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   also  considered   relevant   statutory   provision,   the  scheme   and   the   decisions   by   Hon'ble   Apex   Court  and   High   Court.   She   submitted   that   there   is   no  error   in   the   conclusion   and   decision   by  respondent   No.1   and/or   learned   Tribunal.     She  also  submitted  that  the petition  which  is taken  out   against   concurrent   decisions   by   respondent  No.1 and learned Tribunal does not deserve to be  entertained and that, therefore, the petition may  be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 27 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1   2 Next