Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

SLP (C) Nos. 8781-82 and 11438-41/2012. Case: Surya Roshini Ltd. Vs Employees' Provident Fund and Anr.. Supreme Court

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberSLP (C) Nos. 8781-82 and 11438-41/2012
Party NameSurya Roshini Ltd. Vs Employees' Provident Fund and Anr.
CounselFor Appellant: Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Gagan Gupta and Reghenth Basant, Advs. and For Respondents: Aparna Bhat, Pukhralam Ramesh Kumar, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Balraj Dewan and Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Advs.
JudgesH.L. Gokhale and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
IssueService Law
Citation2013 LLR 561
Judgement DateApril 12, 2013
CourtSupreme Court

Order:

  1. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appears for the Petitioner in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8781-8782 of 2012, Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioners in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11438-11439 of 2012 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11440-11441 of 2012. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent Provident Fund Commissioner in all the matters. Delay condoned.

  2. These Special Leave Petitions seek to challenge the orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which have declined to interfere in the orders passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gwalior whereunder conveyance allowance and special allowance were included in the definition of "basic wages' for the purposes of payment of Provident Fund Contribution.

  3. By order dated 13th July, 2012, another Bench of this Court has granted stay of the impugned order by directing the Petitioners to deposit 60% of the amount demanded after getting credit to the amount already paid. We are informed that the amount has been deposited with the Provident Fund office concerned.

  4. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned Counsel for the Respondents has brought to our notice that in another Special Leave Petition bearing No. 5260 of 2008 seeking to challenge an order of Calcutta High Court leave has been granted. The High Court had not included the special allowance in the concept of "basic wages'...

To continue reading

Request your trial