The ratio decidendi cited at 34: “…there was nothing in any of the former employees’ compensation plans which obliged the appellants to make payment of the VCC before the 14th of each month.”
The issue is whether the VCC should be classified as “ordinary” or “additional” wages under the Central Provident Fund Act First Schedule para5(d)&(e). Para5(e) stated that “ordinary wages” must be “payable before the due date for the payment of contribution for that month”. This statute is crucial for the court to judge if the VCC fulfils the criteria of “ordinary wages”.
Since the appellants do not have any obligations to make the VCC payment before the 14th of each month, the due date stated in the Central Provident Fund Regulations (Cap36,Rg 15), the wages are not payable and the definition in para5(e) is not satisfied.
The ratio decidendi is a fact that clearly do not match the meaning of “ordinary wages”, thus it forms the basis of the judgement that the VCC is classified as “additional wages”, with reference to para5(d), any remuneration other than “ordinary wages” is “additional wages”.
Qb)
Appellants’ argument
The appellants argued that the trial judge has misinterpreted “payable” under the CPF Act. The term “payable” cannot be defined as actual payment and they cited English cases to support their argument. {Secretary of State for Employment v Crane[1988] & Morton v The Chief Adjudication Officer[1988]} Their argument went to the extent of citing instances{S58(e)} from the CPF Act where terms such as “pay” or “paid” are used in the Act to mean actual payment, instead of “payable”. Rather, “payable” should mean a legal obligation to pay.
Respondents’ argument
The respondents stood by the definition that “payable” ...