The Industrial Disputes Act was enacted in 1947. The Employees Provident Fund Act was enacted in 1952. Both acts are central enactments.  Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act says any employer cannot reduce the “wage” or the total quantum of benefits of old age pension in order to reduce the liability of the contribution payable.

As per the Industrial Disputes Act change of conditions in service can be effected after following the procedure prescribed under section 9-A. Change in conditions of service is linked to the items mentioned in the fourth schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act.  Item 2 of the fourth schedule states “Contribution paid, or payable, by the employer to any provident fund or pension fund or for the benefit of the workmen under any law for the time being in force”.
 
In simple language Industrial Disputes Act says you can change aspects relatingto contributions under the Provident Fund Act after following the procedure in section 9-A i.e by issuing notice etc. The Provident Fund Act says no.
 
So does this confirm that there is a conflict? No. Because the Industrial Disputes Act talks of “contributions paid or payable”.  So what is contributions paid or payable ?  The provident fund act requires contributions to be paid on certain allowances. Some other allowances are excluded. Upon these excluded allowances contributions need not be paid as per the Provident Fund Act.  So contribution is not payable on entire salary.  
 
This is because the Industrial Disputes Act does not specify on what allowances contributions must be calculated. The only enactment that specifies the same is the provident fund Act. However there can be a settlement between the union and the management that contributions shall be paid on entire salary i.e all allowances.
 
These are permitted under the provident fund act as voluntary contributions. At any point of the time the provident fund act allows the employer to revert on paying contributions only to the extent that is actually payable under the Provident fund act, but the problem will arise under the Industrial disputes act. So examined in any manner, at some point of time, a factual confusion arises.
 
 But just like anything else, everything has a solution. When there is no agreement/ settlement between the employees under the Industrial Disputes Act and the management, if the contribution that is being paid is more than what is legally payable under the Provident Fund Act, there is no contradiction.
 
Factually these look contradictory. But legally?. “Generalia specialibus non derogant” .  Sounds like greek ? No its latin. A latin legal maxim. It means that when a special act/enactment covers a situation, then the special act will prevail over the general law. Which means the Provident Fund Act will prevail over the Industrial Disputes Act.
 
 However this protection is limited to situations which are squarely covered by and answered by the provident fund act. Example, calculation of contributions, excluded allowances etc.
 
So legally there is no contradiction. “Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant”.  If two central enactments are at conflict then the later enactment will prevail. So a 1952 Provident Fund Act will prevail over a 1947 Industrial Disputes Act.  But this does not mean that 9-A need not be followed under any circumstances.
 
So what are those circumstances and what is the procedure under section 9-A of the ID Act? What are the exceptions ?  When does the change come into effect ? When the notice is issued or when it is actually effected? Do all changes qualify or only those which shall have adverse effect ? What is the consequence of a violation of section 9-A? Is there a general rule regarding what is condition of service? Does everything automatically become a condition of service?
 
Lets catch up next week …..
Until then enjoy the new spices of life !!!!

Source: