Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.48 seconds)The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 in The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 [Entire Act]
Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs Union Of India on 11 September, 1962
41. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
that there were approximately 2670 employees in the Petitioner
Company, however, only 2319 employees were entitled to receive the
canteen allowance. Accordingly, it is the contention of the Petitioner that
since the canteen allowance is not available to all the employees of the
Petitioner, the same cannot be treated as „basic wages‟ as per the law laid
down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd. (supra).
However, a perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner extended the
benefit of canteen allowance to all the employees who are covered under
Section 2(e) of the I.D. Act. This benefit is not personal to individual
employees. Thus, canteen allowance is not a benefit extended to
individual employee; it is available to all the employees covered under
Section 2 (e) of the I.D. Act.
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs Vivekananda Vidyamandir on 28 February, 2019
26. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Respondent
on the judgements in the matters of Gujarat Cypromet, Ltd. v. Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, reported as 2004 SCC OnLine Guj 109;
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., reported as (2003)
2 SCC 111; SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, reported as
(2001) 7 SCC 1; Regional Provident Funds Commr. v. Shibn Metal
Works, reported as (1965) 2 SCR 72; Provident Fund Commr. v.
Vivekananda Vidyamandir, reported as (2020) 17 SCC 643.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Reliance Industries Limited vs Assitant Provident Fund Commissioner - ... on 20 April, 2023
32. Regarding the first issue, i.e., whether the canteen allowance paid
by the Petitioner to all the employees is a „cash value of any food
concession‟ under Section 6 of the E.P.F. Act, the law is settled. Various
High Courts in Tata Power Company Limited, Mumbai v. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai (Supra); Reliance Industries
Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Supra); Wipro, Ltd. v.
Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New
W.P.(C) 7729/1999 Page 15 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:10.07.2023
14:51:50
Delhi, (Supra), categorically held that the cash paid by the Petitioner to
its employees in lieu of canteen facilities does not amount to „cash value
of any food concession‟. This Court is in respectful agreement with the
ratio of these Judgments and hence in view of the law laid down by
various High Courts, it is held that the canteen allowance paid by the
Petitioner to its employees in lieu of canteen facilities cannot be treated as
„cash value of any food concession‟. However, in none of these cases, the
issue whether cash allowance paid by the employer to its employees in
lieu of canteen facilities can be considered as „basic wages‟ for the
purpose of Section 2 (b) of the E.P.F. Act has been considered.