42 SEBI & CORPORATE LAWS - MAGAZINE[Vol. 154
(d) aannyd contribution paid by the employer to any pension of provident fund,
the interest which may have accrued thereon;
(e) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;
(f) aonny sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed
him by the nature of his employment; or
(g) aefinty retrenchment compensation or any gratuity or other retirement ben-
ter^ mpianyaatibolen^ to^ the^ employee^ or^ any^ ex-gratia^ payment^ made^ to^ him^ on^ the^
of employment;
(h) any overtime allowance; and
(i) cash value of any foodgrains:
Providedby that for calculating the wage under this clause, if any payments made
all^ the^ employer^ to^ the^ employee^ under^ clauses^ (a)^ to^ (i)^ exceed^ one^ half^ of^ the^
on^ er-ehmalfuneration^ calculated^ under^ this^ clause,^ the^ amount^ which^ exceeds^ such^
shall
be
deemed
as
remuneration
and
shall
accordingly
be
added
to
all
remuneration^
under
this
clause.”
Thus,
it
is
evident
from
above
that
the
governing
Regulatory
Ministry,
i.e.,
the
Ministry^
of
Labour
&
Employment
has
itself
proposed
the
exclusion
of
travelling
allowance^
and
any
sum
paid
to
the
employed
person
to
defray
special
expenses
entailed^
on
him
by
the
nature
of
his
employment
as
per
clauses
(
e)
and
(
f)
of
the^
newly
proposed
section
2 (
b)
of
the
Act,
from
the
purview
of
‘wages’
for
the^
purpose
of
determination
of
PF
contribution,
among
other
exclusions.
More
importantly,
the
proviso
to
the
newly
proposed
section
is
also
in
com
plete -
alignment
with
the
earlier
CPFC’s
circular
No.
C-III/ 110001 / 4 / 3 ( 72 ) 14 /
Circular/Hqrs/ 6693
dated
6. 8. 2014 ,
as
it
stipulates
a
threshold
compliance
limit^
of
deduction
of
PF
contribution
on
50 %
of
the
total
wages.
The
regulatory
body
EPFO
videits
office
memo
bearing
F.No.
C-I/ 1 ( 81 ) 2017 /
Wages/ 1801
dated
8. 2. 2018
has
duly
accepted
the
said
newly
proposed
defi
nition -
of
wages
for
the
purpose
of
determination
of
PF
contribution.2.3 Justification for Non-Applicability of the captioned judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra), to the Establish-
ments deducting and contributing PF contribution on more than the 50%
of total wages -
It
is
a
matter
of
fact
that
the
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court,
during
the^
course
of
appellate
pleadings,
in
the
captioned
judgment
of
Surya Roshni
Ltd.
(
supra),
had
not
been
made
privy
to
the
above
CPFC
Circular
No.
bearing
F.No.^
C-I/ 1 ( 81 ) 2017 /Wages/ 1801 ,
dated
8. 2. 2018
and
the
Labour
Ministry’s
office^
memo
bearing
F.No.
S- 35012 / 10 / 2017 - SS.II
dated
7. 2. 2018
proposing
a
new^
definition
of
“wages”
for
the
purpose
of
determination
of
PF
contribution,
although^
both
the
circulars/office
memos
had
been
issued
before
the
date
of^
pronouncement
of
the
said
judgment
by
the
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court,
i.e.,
28. 2. 2019 ,^
and,
as
such,
the
Hon’ble
Supreme
Court
had
no
occasion,
whatso
ever -
to
consider
the
acceptable
stand
of
the
Law
Making
Body,
i.e.,
the
Labour
Ministry^
&
the
Regulatory
Body
EPFO/CPFC,
that
the
establishments
deducting