Newsletter Jul - Sep 2025

Understanding of Payment of Bonus Act

Applicability

The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 extends to 1.all factories and 2. establishments employing twenty or more persons during any accounting year, provided appropriate government also holds the authority, through a formal notification in the Official Gazette, to bring within its ambit certain establishments with fewer than twenty employees, provided the number is not less than ten. Once an establishment comes under the purview of this Act, it remains subject to its provisions even if the workforce later decreases below Twenty.

Definitions

I. As per Section 2(13) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, an “employee” refers to any individual, except an apprentice, who earns a salary or wages of up to twenty-one thousand rupees per month and is engaged in any kind of work—manual, technical, clerical, administrative, supervisory, or managerial—regardless of whether the employment terms are formally written or understood.

II. As per Section 2(14) of the Act, an “employer” means—

(i) in the context of a factory, the owner or occupier, their authorized agent, the legal heir of a deceased owner, or a manager appointed under the Factories Act, 1948; and

(ii) for any other establishment, the person or authority with overall control of the operations, or, if the responsibility is delegated, the manager, managing director, or managing agent in charge.

III. As per Section 2(21) “salary or wage” means all remuneration (other than remuneration in respect of overtime work) capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to an employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments, by whatever name called, paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), but does not include—

(i) any other allowance which the employee is for the time being entitled to

(ii) the value of any house accommodation or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of foodgrains or other articles.

(iii) any travelling concession.

(iv) any bonus (including incentive, production and attendance bonus);

(v) Statutory Contributions

(vi) any retrenchment compensation or any gratuity or other retirement benefit payable to the employee or any ex-gratia payment made to him

(vii) any commission payable to the employee.

Eligibility

As per Sec. 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, every employee who has worked in the establishment for not less than 30 days in that account year shall be paid bonus. Whereas the scope of definition of employee is limited to any person (other than an apprentice) employed and drawing a salary or wage not exceeding twenty-one thousand rupees per month in any industry as per Sec. 2(13) of the Act.

Case Laws

In Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited and Others vs. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in analysing the Notification issued by the Labour Department, Haryana Government containing that the minimum rates of wages notified are basic rate of minimum wages which are not permitted to be segregated into components in the form of allowances by the employer held the prohibition to be invalid. The Hon’ble Court reiterated the judgment pronounced in Airfreight Ltd vs. State Of Karnataka And Others and held that prohibition on the segregation of wages into components represented in the form of allowances is not a valid exercise of power and is impermissible.

In Airfreight Ltd v. State of Karnataka & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the minimum wages fixed under the Act represent the total remuneration payable to a worker as a single consolidated package. The Court clarified that an employer is in compliance with the Act if the total payment made to the worker is equal to or exceeds the minimum rate of wages, provided that the components excluded under Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act are not included in the computation.

Bonus Computation for Employees Exceeding Wage Threshold

As per section 12 of the Payment of bonus act, the employees earning more than ₹7,000 per month or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, whichever is higher, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 requires that the bonus be computed as if their salary or wages were limited to ₹7,000 or the applicable minimum wage. This provision ensures that higher-earning employees remain eligible for bonus while providing a uniform basis for calculation by capping the salary or wage considered. 

Allocable Surplus

Allocable surplus means the portion of a company’s profits that can be used for paying bonuses. For companies (other than banks) that have not made the dividend arrangements required under the Income-tax Act, it is 67% of the available surplus in that year. In any other case, it is 60% of the available surplus. 

  • Set on and set off of allocable surplus:  

Excess Surplus (Set On): Any surplus beyond the maximum bonus can be carried forward up to 20% of total wages for use in future years (up to 4 years). 

 

Shortfall (Set Off): If the surplus is insufficient to pay minimum bonus, the deficit can be carried forward for future adjustment (up to 4 years). 

 

The set on/set off principle from the Fourth Schedule applies to all other situations. Carried-forward amounts are utilized starting from the earliest accounting year when calculating bonus for the next year. 

Conclusion

The calculation of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is to be based solely on Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance (DA). While employers may structure wages into various components, only those forming part of the core salary—Basic and DA—are considered for determining bonus eligibility. Any other components or allowances must be excluded in line with statutory provisions. This ensures employees get their proper bonus and gives employers a simple, lawful way to calculate it. It prevents disputes over bonus payments and ensures clarity in wage structuring.   

Recent Amendments & Notifications

Enhanced EDLI Benefit Coverage Under EPF – July 2025 Amendment 

The Employees’ Deposit-Linked Insurance (Amendment) Scheme, 2025 ensures a minimum insurance payout of ₹50,000 for EPF members who pass away during service or within 12 months of separation, even if their PF balance is below ₹50,000. A break in service of up to 60 days will not affect eligibility. If the employee dies within six months of last contribution while officially employed, the benefit remains payable. These changes bolster financial protection for dependents. 

Revised Minimum Wages in Meghalaya – Effective April 1, 2025 

The Department of Labour, Meghalaya, has revised minimum wages across various skill levels, now ranging from ₹541 to ₹665 per day. The new structure includes Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA), with standard hours remaining 8 per day and 48 per week. Overtime is payable at double the ordinary rate. Rates will be revised every 6 months based on the Consumer Price Index. 

 

Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Amendment, 2025 

The 2025 amendment updates the 1985 scheme by allowing self-employed workers to retain membership up to age 65 (with medical clearance), revising contribution slabs, and introducing flexible payment methods. Minimum pensions have increased, and benefits now cover additional medical treatments, enhanced funeral, marriage, and educational support for members and dependents. 

 

Implementation of ESI Act in Banda District, Uttar Pradesh 

The Central Government has extended ESI Act, 1948 provisions to Banda district. All workers and employers are now covered under the ESI scheme. Applicable provisions include Sections 38–43, 45A–45H, 46–75, and sub-sections of 76, 82, and 83. 

 

Mandatory Accuracy in Gross Wage Reporting for ELI Scheme 

To avail benefits under the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme, employers must correctly report gross wages in ECR for employees earning below ₹1,00,000/month. This rule is effective for wage month August 2025 onwards. Compliance is necessary to determine incentive eligibility. 

 

Permission for Women’s Night Shift Employment in Odisha Factories 

Odisha now permits women to work night shifts (7 p.m. to 6 a.m.) in registered factories, subject to consent and safety conditions including GPS-tracked transport, sanitary/crèche facilities (for 30+ women), lighting, surveillance, and emergency contacts. Self-certification must be filed online. Non-compliance invites penalties under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 

 

Directive for Apprentice Enrolment on NATS Portal 

Establishments and TPAs must ensure apprentices complete enrolment and contract acceptance on the NATS portal themselves. Using temporary or incorrect data is strictly prohibited. Daily progress must be reported to BOPT. Violations will attract legal and administrative consequences. 

 

Amnesty Scheme 2025 for ESI Act Dispute Settlement 

ESIC’s Amnesty Scheme 2025 enables withdrawal of prosecution (Sections 84, 85) and settlement of court cases (Sections 75, 82) including Article 226 writ petitions. It provides employers a one-time opportunity to regularise pending issues through structured compliance. 

 

Submission of Contract Requests on NATS 2.0 Post Maintenance 

Due to system maintenance between 19.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, NATS 2.0 didn’t allow contract generation. Establishments must send apprentice details (Enrolment No., Date of Joining, Establishment Name & ID) to respective Assistant Directors by 29.07.2025 for further processing. 

 

Extension of ESI Act to Educational and Medical Institutions in Maharashtra 

The Maharashtra Government has proposed extending the ESI Act, 1948 to all educational and medical institutions—including schools, colleges, hospitals, diagnostic centres, and labs—with 10 or more employees. This will apply in areas where ESI is already in force. Public comments can be submitted from August 8, 2025. 

 

EPFO Mandates UAN Generation via Aadhaar-Based Face Authentication 

Effective August 1, 2025, all new UAN generation via the UMANG App must be completed using Aadhaar-based Face Authentication Technology (FAT). Employer-assisted UAN creation is now restricted to exceptional cases, such as for workers from Nepal or Bhutan. A user manual was shared via circular dated April 8, 2025. 

 

ESIC Guidelines on MSME Survey and SPREE Registration 

ESIC has clarified that no survey of MSME units should be conducted unless instructed by headquarters. Instead, field offices must ensure scrutiny of data and encourage uncovered MSME units to register under SPREE via SSP, ESIC, or MCA portals. 

 

Draft Delhi Social Security Rules, 2025 Issued 

The Delhi Labour Department has released draft rules under the Delhi Code on Social Security, 2025. Key provisions cover gratuity payments, especially for minors (to be invested in term deposits), and lay out nomination rules, penalties, and payment procedures. Feedback is invited by email or at Room No. 202, 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. 

 

Clarification on ECR Filing for ELI Scheme Eligibility 

EPFO has clarified via notification dated July 22, 2025, that gross wages of new entrants earning up to ₹1,00,000 must be accurately reported in the ECR. This is essential to qualify for the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme. Effective from the August 2025 wage month. 

 

Timely Submission of APARs for 2024–25 

Departments have been instructed to prioritise timely submission and processing of APARs to avoid delays in performance assessments, promotions, and administrative decisions. Non-compliance may disrupt manpower planning and affect organisational discipline. 

 

Amendments to Rule 105 of Puducherry Factories Rules, 1964 

Puducherry’s Lieutenant Governor has notified amendments to the schedules under Rule 105 of the Puducherry Factories Rules, 1964. These changes aim to strengthen regulatory oversight on factory operations. 

 

Haryana Issues Rules for Contractual Employees Under 2024 Act 

The Haryana Government has issued rules under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Services) Act, 2024. These rules standardise service conditions and employment security for eligible contractual workers employed under this legislation. 

 

Extension of Public Utility Status to Aluminium & Bauxite Industries 

The Central Government has extended Public Utility Service status under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for another six months (from August 2025) to aluminium manufacturing and bauxite mining industries, continuing from the initial notification dated February 27, 2025. 

 

Case Analysis

Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 

Shripal & Another Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 

Facts of the Case

A group of gardeners (malis) working in the Horticulture Department of Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam (the respondent employer) since 1998 have claimed that they were made to work continuously without any official appointment letters or basic legal benefits like minimum wages, weekly offs, and paid holidays. In 2004, they filed a complaint (industrial dispute) asking for regular jobs and proper benefits. After this, they allege that the Nagar Nigam started delaying their salaries and making their work conditions worse. By mid-2005, many of them were reportedly removed from their jobs without any written notice, reason, or compensation, while their case was still being heard. The workers say this goes against Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which protects employees during ongoing dispute proceedings. The State Government later referred the matter to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, to decide on both the demand for regularization and whether their termination was legal. 

Issues
  1. Whether a direct employer-employee relationship existed between the appellant workmen and Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, or were the workmen employed through independent contractors? 
  2. Whether the workmen, as daily wagers, can claim regularization of their services considering the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006)? 
  3. Whether the appellant workmen successfully proved they had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year, as required under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 
  4. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing payment of minimum scale wages and future consideration for regularization despite the employer’s recruitment restrictions? 
Relevant Sections
  1. Section 6E, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
  2. Section 6N, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
  3. General Principles under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
  4. Relevant Labor Employer-Employee Relationship 
Decision

The Court examined the key contention of whether the workmen were engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam or through contractors. The employer failed to produce any material evidence such as contracts, tender documents, or records showing third-party involvement in recruitment or wage disbursal. On the contrary, the record indicated that the workmen performed duties under the supervision of the Horticulture Department and were paid from the Nagar Nigam’s accounts. This pattern established an employer-employee relationship and negated the respondent’s outsourcing defense. The Court emphasized that mere labelling of employees as “casual” or “contractual” cannot override the actual nature of employment. 

The judgment discussed Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibits employers from altering service conditions or terminating workers during the pendency of industrial dispute proceedings without prior approval. The Court found that the Nagar Nigam terminated the services of the workmen while conciliation proceedings were underway, without seeking permission from the appropriate authority. This action amounted to a clear violation of Section 6E. 

Additionally, the employer failed to comply with Section 6N, which mandates that no workman who has completed at least 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months shall be retrenched without one month’s notice or wages in lieu thereof, along with retrenchment compensation. The Court held that this safeguard applies irrespective of whether the employee is temporary or permanent. In this case, the employer neither issued notice nor paid compensation, and failed to produce service records to rebut the workmen’s claim of long-standing employment. This procedural non-compliance rendered the termination illegal under both Sections 6E and 6N. 

Precedent Analysis

The respondent’s reliance on the Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) judgment to resist regularization was rejected. The Court clarified that Umadevi differentiates between illegal and irregular appointments, with the latter being eligible for regularization under specific conditions. In this case, the workmen had been engaged for over a decade in performing perennial duties essential to the municipality’s functioning. The employer could not justify denying them protections by citing a general ban on recruitment.  

Conclusion

The Court declared the termination of the workmen illegal under Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and quashed all related termination orders. The workmen were ordered to be reinstated with full continuity of service, including seniority and promotion rights. They were granted 50% back wages for the period of their absence until reinstatement. The employer was directed to initiate fair regularization within six months, without imposing retrospective conditions. The workmen’s appeals were allowed, and the employer’s appeals dismissed.

The Management vs Paulvannan (Madras High Court) July 9, 2025  

WP(MD).26555/2024

Facts of the Case

The respondent workman was employed as a slider in the petitioner’s spinning mill. He was placed under suspension on 08.03.2019, which was later revoked on 31.05.2019. Upon revocation, the management treated 30 days of suspension as a substantive punishment. Later, on 31.12.2019, the trade union and the management entered into a Section 12(3) settlement, wherein the management agreed to pay wages for 15 days of that suspension period. Subsequently, the workman was again suspended on 11.06.2019, and this suspension was revoked on 31.01.2020. Similarly, 30 days of that suspension were also treated as substantive punishment. During bonus disbursement, the management excluded the suspension period and considered only the 15 days paid under the settlement for the purpose of calculating bonus. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed C.P. No. 34 of 2021 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, seeking bonus for the full period of suspension.

Issue

Whether the management was justified in excluding the suspension period—treated as substantive punishment—from the calculation of bonus payable to the workman. 

Relevant Sections Involved:  

  1. 2(21) of the payment of Bonus act 1965
  2. 17(4)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Stading orders) Rules 1947
Petitioner’s Argument

The management argued that since the worker was under suspension and did not receive any wages or allowances during that time, they are not obligated to pay bonus for that period. As per Section 2(21) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, bonus is calculated only on the wages actually paid and no wages were paid during suspension.

Respondent’s Argument

The workman countered that, under Rule 17(4)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Standing Orders, suspension beyond 30 days entitles the employee to full wages unless extended legally. Since only 30 days of the suspension were treated as punishment, the rest should be considered as duty period with full wages and bonus should be calculated accordingly. The management cannot deny bonus for that period by withholding wages it was legally obligated to pay.

Decision

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s award, affirming that the workman was entitled to receive ₹16,225 as bonus. While the petitioner argued that bonus should only be paid on wages actually disbursed under Section 2(21) of the Payment of Bonus Act, the Court accepted the Labour Court’s reasoning that the balance suspension period, beyond the 30 days treated as punishment, ought to be considered as duty period since no valid wages were paid, despite the employer’s obligation under Rule 17(4)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Standing Orders. The Court held that the employer cannot benefit from its own default in not paying wages and then use that as a ground to deny bonus. Therefore, finding no error in the Labour Court’s award, the writ petition was dismissed.

Ahijit Mishra Vs Wipro Ltd., 2025  

SCC Online Del 4976 / Date: 14-07-2025 

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was employed with Wipro between 2018 and 2020 under a formal contract of employment. Clause 10 of the said contract permitted either party to terminate the engagement, subject to a notice period of one month during probation and two months post-confirmation. On 5th June 2020, Wipro issued a termination letter, citing the petitioner’s conduct as “malicious” and alleging a “complete loss of trust,” thereby concluding that the employer-employee relationship had broken down beyond repair. 

 

The petitioner challenged the inclusion of these characterizations, asserting that such remarks were defamatory and prejudicial to his professional standing. He contended that the language used in the termination communication has had an adverse effect on his employability, as it damaged his reputation in the professional domain. 

 

In response, Wipro argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the allegedly defamatory statements were communicated to any third party beyond himself. They further claimed that the petitioner was more invested in portraying himself as a “Crusader for Social Change” than fulfilling his responsibilities as an employee. It was also submitted that the petitioner had been placed on a Performance Improvement Plan but had shown a continued lack of interest in addressing his performance deficiencies, ultimately necessitating his termination.

Issues
  1. Whether the statements in the termination letter were untrue and defamatory, and whether any legitimate defence was available to the employer?  
  2. Whether the allegedly defamatory statements specifically identified the petitioner.  
  3. Whether the defamatory remarks were communicated or published by the defendant? 
Findings

The petitioner produced several internal performance reviews and emails which consistently rated him as a competent and high-performing employee. These records stood in clear contradiction to the statements in the termination letter, which accused him of malicious conduct and claimed a total loss of trust.

 

The court found these accusations to be unfounded and damaging to the petitioner’s professional standing. Wipro failed to justify the statements or establish any recognised legal defence such as truth or qualified privilege. No evidence was shown that the petitioner’s performance warranted such remarks. The inconsistency between internal records and the termination letter demonstrated clear falsity.

 

The defamatory nature of the statements was apparent on their face. The employer’s failure to provide any valid defence further weakened its position. The court concluded that the statements were both false and injurious. Thus, the legal threshold for defamation and absence of lawful defence was satisfied.         

 

The Court held that, as the termination letter was expressly addressed to the petitioner, the defamatory content directly and unambiguously referred to him. There was no uncertainty in identification, thereby fulfilling the requirement of a clear and specific reference.     

 

The Court adopted the principle of compelled self-publication from developed American jurisprudence, emphasizing that where the originator of a defamatory statement can reasonably foresee that the subject would be compelled to disclose it to others—such as potential employers—the originator may be held liable for its dissemination. In the context of employment-related libel, the Court underscored the dual test: whether the defendant had actual knowledge that third-party exposure was likely, or whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have anticipated such a likelihood. 

Decision

The Court recognized that the remarks made in the termination letter were likely to surface in the petitioner’s future employment attempts. It was acknowledged as a matter of practical necessity that, during job applications, background checks, or reference requests, the petitioner would be forced to share the termination letter with prospective employers. 

 

Given Wipro’s position as an established employer, the Court held that it was reasonably expected to anticipate that such disclosures would occur. The language used in the letter—particularly the unverified accusation of “malicious conduct”—was found to be baseless and predictably harmful, making the matter subject to legal remedy. 

 

The Court determined that such language had directly affected the petitioner’s ability to secure future employment and harmed his standing in his professional field. In the absence of any lawful justification provided by Wipro and considering the damage caused, the Court found grounds for judicial intervention. 

 

As a result, the Court awarded ₹2,00,000 in compensation for the loss of reputation, emotional strain, and career harm endured by the petitioner. It also directed Wipro to delete the offending remarks from the termination letter and to issue a revised version free from any defamatory content. 

Conclusion

The court found the defamatory remarks in the termination letter to be false and damaging to the petitioner’s reputation. Wipro failed to provide any valid defence or justification for the statements. The remarks were deemed to have a foreseeable harmful impact on the petitioner’s future employment prospects. Consequently, the court awarded damages and directed removal of the defamatory content from the termination letter.  

Judgement Snippets
  • Working under different branches cannot be taken into consideration for determining continuous service. – 2025 LLR 749 Rajasthan High Court. 
  • Coverage of establishment under the Gratuity Act would follow when it is covered under the EPF Act. 2025 LLR 718 Madras High Court. 
  • No complaint under POSH Act on mere humiliation of woman employee in group discussion. 2025 LLR 882 Telangana High Court.  
  • Site allowance, not being paid to all employees universally, is not ‘basic wages’.2025 LLR 896 Kerala High Court.  
  • There is no requirement under the EPF Scheme providing for mandatory KYC on the part of the employer. 2025 LLR 936 Himachal Pradesh High Court.  
  • No recovery notice can be issued by EPFO during pendency of appeal before the CGIT.2025 LLR 942 Calcutta High Court.  
  • For an allowance to be a part of ‘basic wages’, it has to be paid to all employees in a particular category. 2025 LLR 896 Kerala High Court.  
  • EPFO cannot hold trainees to be employees merely because they were employed in large numbers. 2025 LLR 929 Kerala High Court. 
  • When the workman fails to establish continuous service of 12 consecutive months preceding the date of retrenchment, he cannot claim reinstatement with the employer. 2025 LLR WEB 497 – Gujarat High Court.  
  • Senior executive, drawing monthly salary of Rs.51,703/-, is not a ‘workman’ under section 2(s) of the ID Act. 2025 LLR WEB 498 – Gujarat High Court.  
  • The Family of a Watchman deployed on night duty, who met with an accident 5 kms away while he was proceeding towards his workplace, will be entitled to accident compensation. 2025 LLR WEB 504 – Supreme Court of India.  
  • Management can be held liable for defamation when false allegations were made in the termination letter of employee. 2025 LLR WEB 505 – Delhi High Court.  
  • It is for the workman to bring on record any document supporting his arguments that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of retrenchment. 2025 LLR WEB 511 – Rajasthan High Court.     
Questionnaire

1. The factories act, 1948 requires the appointment of a welfare officer in every factory employing:

a) 500 or more workmen

b) 400 or more workmen

c) 300 or more workmen

d) 250 or more workmen

 

2. As per the factories’ act, 1948 one additional first aid box must be provided for every:

a) 100 workers

b) 150 workers

c) 500 workers

d) 1000 workers

 

3. A worker gets permanently totally disabled by an accident which was caused while he was on duty under the influence of alcohol:

a) he will be paid compensation under the act.

b) he will not be paid compensation under the act.

c) the act is silent

d) consumption of alcohol deprives him from compensation

 

4. If a worker desires to contribute more than 12% under the employees’ provident funds and miscellaneous provisions act 1952, then

a) his employer shall be also under obligation to pay equal to the workers’ contribution.

b) his employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution

c) the act is silent in this regard

d) none of the above.

 

5. Which of the following statements correctly interprets the implications of the Employees’ Deposit-Linked Insurance (Amendment) Scheme, 2025, as notified in July 2025?

a) The assurance benefit of ₹50,000 is payable only if the employee had a continuous PF contribution for the preceding 36 months, irrespective of employment status at the time of death.

b) If an employee dies within six months of the last PF contribution while still officially employed, the benefit remains payable under the scheme.

c) A break in PF contribution of up to 60 days automatically disqualifies the nominee from receiving the insurance benefit.

d) The scheme now permits partial withdrawal of insurance funds by the nominee for medical treatment in case of terminal illness of the employee.

Answers:

1. a) 500 or more workmen

2. b) 150 workers

3. d) consumption of alcohol deprives him from compensation

4. b) his employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution

5. b) If an employee dies within six months of the last PF contribution while still officially employed, the benefit remains payable under the scheme.

Newsletter

    Newsletter