PN Electronic Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeWee Chong Jin CJ
Judgment Date14 December 1984
Neutral Citation[1984] SGHC 41
Citation[1984] SGHC 41
Subject MatterProvident Fund,Contributions,Words and Phrases,Whether salary,ss 2, 7 & 29(1) Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 121),Transportation allowances paid to employees at the same time as salary,Reimbursement of transport expenses,Employer,'Remuneration',s 2 Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 121),Whether allowances are wages,Failure of employer to contribute to CPF of employees
Plaintiff CounselDavid Chelliah (Chelliah & Co)
Defendant CounselTan Siong Thye (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 97 of 1983
Published date19 September 2003
Date14 December 1984

The appellant company was charged, convicted and fined by a magistrate`s court on six charges under s 29(1) of the Central Provident Fund Act (the Act) in time in respect of six employees the company failed to pay contributions in accordance with the rates payable as required by s 7 of the Act. The company appealed and the only issue raised by the company was whether the transportation allowances paid to the six employees under cl 26 (a)(ii) and (b) of a collective agreement dated 31 March 1978 fell within the definition of `wages` in s 2 of the Act.

Clause 26 of the Collective Agreement provides:

TRANSPORT and TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE

(a) The Company shall not provide any transport for the employee except as follows:

(i) To and from any worksite other than the Company`s premises at which the employee is required to work by the Company.

(ii) From the employee`s normal place of abode to the Company`s premises, if the employee is required to work before or after normal working hours or on any rest day or public holiday.

(b) If the employee is entitled to transport under any of the provisions of sub-cl (a) of this Clause and the Company cannot supply its own transport than the employee may claim reimbursement of the actual taxi-fare for the journey involved.



Section 2 of the Act defines `wages` as follows:

Wages means the remuneration in money, including any bonus, due or granted to a person in respect of his employment.



The facts can be stated briefly. The company provides ship repair services and it employed workers who, because of the nature of the company`s business, were often called on to work unpredictable hours. Employees of the company who claimed to be entitled to reimbursement under cl 26(b) of the collective agreement were required to submit claim forms by filling in a card system. The claims of each employee varied in amount from month to month and claims were paid by the company together with the salary. The claims were calculated in accordance with cl 26(b) of the collective agreement.

The crucial question, therefore, was the meaning of the word `remuneration` in that definition. Of the several authorities referred to during the argument on the meaning of the word `remuneration` in statutory enactments the case of Botham v Torbay Corp [1974] 72 LGR 590 was, in my opinion, of most assistance. In that case the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of `remuneration` as used in art 66 of a statutory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ponggol Marina Pte Ltd v Central Provident Fund Board (Public Prosecutor)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 17 August 2001
    ...Lian Soon Shipping & Trading Co (Pte) Ltd v PP [1983-1984] SLR (R) 563; [1984-1985] SLR 424 (folld) P N Electronic Pte Ltd v PP [1983-1984] SLR (R) 778; [1984-1985] SLR 529 (folld) Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1999 Ed) s 2 (consd);ss 58 (b), 61 (1), 61A (1), First Schedule Provident ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Jurong Country Club
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 14 December 2018
    ...to build up their retirement savings and this objective of the CPF was affirmed by the High Court in P N Electronic Pte Ltd v PP [1984] SGHC 41 at [9]: “The object of the Act, which provides a scheme for compulsory contributions by employees during employment, with compulsory contributions ......
  • Chew Eu Hock Construction Company Pte Ltd (under judicial management) v Central Provident Fund Board
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 September 2003
    ...[2003] SGHC 40 (folld) Frick Australia Pty Ltd v Pen Pak Ocean Products Pty Ltd [1971] Qd R 286 (folld) P N Electronic Pte Ltd v PP [1983-1984] SLR (R) 778; [1984-1985] SLR 529 (refd) Ray Brooks Pty Ltd v New South Wales Grains Board (2002) 41 ACSR 631 (folld) Soon Aik Marine & Engineering ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT