Ponggol Marina Pte Ltd v Central Provident Fund Board (Public Prosecutor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 August 2001
• Date: 17 August 2001
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 67 of 2001
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ponggol Marina Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Central Provident Fund Board

Defendant

[2001] SGHC 225

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 67 of 2001

High Court

Provident Fund–Wages–Employer failing to contribute to employees' Central Provident fund accounts in respect of ex gratia meal allowance–Whether meal allowance falling within definition of “wages” in s 2 of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1999 Rev Ed)–Definition of “remuneration”–Section 2 Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1999 Rev Ed)

The appellant provided ex gratia (not legally required) meal allowances to its employees (the “meal allowance”). It failed to contribute to its employees' Central Provident Fund accounts in respect of the meal allowance, which was an offence under s 58 (b) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), and was convicted.

On appeal, the issue was whether the meal allowance fell within the definition of “wages” in s 2 of the Act.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1)“Remuneration” meant reward for services rendered by an employee in the course of his employment whether paid by the employer or by third parties: at [13] and [14].

(2) The meal allowance was “wages” within the meaning of s 2. First, it was a grant and “granted” in s 2 referred to “remuneration” as well and not just “bonus”. Secondly, “wages” included ex gratia payments other than bonuses. Thirdly, it actually augmented the employees' incomes, despite being small compared to their salaries, as they could use it for other purposes. Fourthly, it was not a reimbursement as the employees did not have to show proof that they had incurred expenses: at [18] to [22].

[Observation: The two types of payments which were not remuneration were: (a) reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, and (b) genuine pre-estimates of expenses necessarily incurred by an employee. In the latter situation, some evidence that the payments were genuine pre-estimates was necessary, or that a precise relationship to the expenses likely to be incurred by the employee could be shown: at [15] and [16].]

Hotel Biltmore v Central Provident Fund Board [1971-1973] SLR (R) 588; [1972-1974] SLR 410 (folld)

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

Liaw Jin Poh and Alvin Cheng (William Lai & Alan Wong) for the appellant

Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This was a magistrate's appeal from the decision of Magistrate Eric Tin Keng Seng, when he convicted the appellant of ten offences under s 58 (b) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 1999 Ed). The appellant pleaded guilty to eight charges. The eight charges related to employees who were contractually entitled to a meal allowance; the other two charges related to employees who had no such entitlement. The magistrate fined the appellant $700 in respect of each charge. He also made an order pursuant to s 61A (1) that the appellant pay $35,286, being the amounts of contributions owing in relation to all ten charges and the interest thereon. The appellant appealed in respect of the two charges on which it had claimed trial before the magistrate. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

The relevant charges

2 The two relevant charges are reproduced below:

Charge in CPF Summons No 059066/2000

You, Punggol Marina Pte Ltd are charged that you on or about 15 January 1997 at Singapore, did fail to pay a sum of $53.00 to the Central Provident Fund Board being a contribution in accordance with the rate of contributions payable as set out in the First Schedule in the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36) for the month of December 1996 in respect of your employee namely, Genghis Khan Bin Setarhan, as required by section 7 (1) of the said Act within the period prescribed by Regulation 2 (1) of the Central Provident Fund Regulations 1987 and thereby committed an offence under section 58 (b) of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36) punishable under section 61 (1) of the said Act.

Charge in CPF Summons No 059068/2000

You, Punggol Marina Pte Ltd are...