• Lumpsum payment of Rs. 450 to each of the employees in lieu of arrears of revised wages and House Rent allowance under an agreement - Parties agreeing that this payment not to be accounted for the purpose of P.F. Contribution ­Contrary finding of Commissioner that contribution has to be made - Finding of Commissioner if sustainable? 
Associated Cement Company Ltd, v. R.M. Gandhi, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat, (1995) III LLJ (Supp) 168: 1992 LLR 192: 1992 Lab IC 2110: 1992-1 CLR 142: 1992­I LLN 252 (Guj HC).

• The arrears of wages with retrospective effect arising out of the award under Industrial Disputes Act also come within the definition of basic wages for payment of EPF contributions.     .
Prantiya Vidyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation, v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (1992) 2 SCC 723: (1992) 20 ATC 302: (1992) 4 SLR 5: 1992 LLR 401: 1992 (64) FLR 1051: 1992-1 CLR 926 (SC).

• Management of a school cannot escape the liability to deposit EPF contribution on D.A. paid to the staff even when it was received through the Government.
Gyan Bharati v. RPF Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (1996) 2 CLR 734: (1996) 2 LLN 1254: 1996 LLR 1004 (Cal HC).

• 'Reward for good work' in lieu of overtime will amount to 'basic wages'.
D.C.M. Ltd, v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1998 LLR 532 (Raj HC).

• Special allowance paid to some employees will not attract EPF contribution.
R. Ramanathan Chettiar Jewellers, Madurai v. Regional Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Madurai, 1998 LLR 1145 (Mad HC).

• When production bonus is not linked with productivity, it will be deemed as 'basic wages' for provident fund contributions.
Daily Partap v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh & Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1998) 9 SCC 90: AIR 1999 SC 2015: 1999 LLR 1 (SC).

• Wage increase with retrospective effect in a settlement will attract EPF contributions.
Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., Pallipalayam, Erode v. Cauvery Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., (2001) 2 MLJ 832: (2002) 2 LLN 322: (2001) III LLJ 1201: 2002 LLR 25 (Mad HC).

• Interim advance paid under a settlement will be wages to attract EPF contributions.
Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd, v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2002 LLR 1043 (Mad HC).

• Incentive bonus paid to employees as a conditions of service and not on the basis of contract that too .lor the work done within eight hours and not beyond hours will be basic wages hence the EPF authorities have rightly held that EPF contributions will be payable.
Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madura;, (2004) 1 LLJ 663: 2004 LLR 135 (Mad HC).

• Since the special allowance appeared to be the dearness allowance, hence it would be basic wages' to attract the EPF contributions.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), West Bengal v. Vivekananda Vidya Mandir, (2005) 2 GIN 307: 2005 LLR 399 (Cal HC).

• Employees' provident funds contributions cannot be claimed on cash value of any food concession or canteen subsidy.
Wipro Ltd., Kancheepuram v. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, 2007 LLR 624 (Mad HC).

• Criminal proceedings under Provident Funds Act against the employer will not be quashed merely by depositing the arrears.
Hotel Dock Palace Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2007 LLR 711 (Cal HC).

• 'Basic wage' for EPF will include dearness allowance and nothing else.
Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. & Five Others v. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (ENF> Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, Trichirapalli, 2007 LLR 1254 (Mad HC).

• Encashment of leave not to be included for provident funds contributions.
Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner, 2008 LLR 443 (SC).

Food Allowance will not be treated as Dearness Allowance for provident fund contributions.
Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashlra & Goa, 200S LLR 1013 (Bom HC).

Provident contribution will be payable on interim payment to the employees in response to their demand.
Dalmin Cemerlt (Bharat) Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trichirapalli, 2009 LLR 11 0 (SN) (Mad HC).

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More