EPF Act’s “Basic Wage” and the Minimum Wages Act’s “Minimum Wage” Are Not the Same Thing

The Appellant is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC), who is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The Respondents are M/s. G4S Security Services (India) Ltd. And its employees are covered by the EPF Act.

The APFC issued an order under Section 7A of the EPF Act, holding that respondent no.1 was splitting the wage structure of its employees and paying them reduced basic wages, thereby evading its liability to contribute the correct amount towards the provident fund. Respondent no.1 challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the order of the APFC and held that the wage structure was in accordance with the terms of employment and collective bargaining agreement. The APFC then filed a writ petition before the High Court, dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.


The issue was whether respondent no.1 was liable to pay provident fund contributions based on the entire wage structure or only on the reduced basic wage as per its terms of employment.

The EPF Act defines ‘basic wages’ as all emoluments that are earned by an employee while on duty, on leave, or holidays with wages in either case per the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him but does not include any other allowances or bonus. The EPF Act also provides that any agreement or contract to reduce or alter the basic wages to avoid liability under the EPF Act shall be null and void.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the APFC and upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. The Supreme Court held no evidence to show that respondent no.1 had split the wage structure to evade its liability under the EPF Act. The Supreme Court also held that there was no compulsion to equate ‘basic wages’ under the EPF Act with ‘minimum wages’ under the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, as different statutes defined them differently. The Supreme Court also noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of respondent no.1 by an earlier order of the APFC, which the appellant department did not challenge.


The Supreme Court’s ruling assures employees will not lose their provident fund benefits, which is a pleasant relief. Additionally, it establishes a precedent for similar issues regarding the interpretation of the EPF Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *