DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, BENGALURU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is coming up for hearing on Interlocutory Applications, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) The petitioner-M/s. Decathlon Sports India Private Limited is an establishment under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for brevity) and the Employee's Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 framed thereunder. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has been remitting provident fund contribution regularly in respect of eligible employees without any default since 2005. He further contends that the first respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 initiated an enquiry against the petitioner for failing to pay provident fund on entire wages attracting provident fund deduction and not paying provident fund in respect of certain components of the wages i.e., Special Allowance, Medical Allowance, Conveyance etc.,

(3.) The first respondent proceeded to pass an order declaring that the said allowance and other similar allowances being paid to the petitioner-employee are required to be considered as part of the wages for the purpose of the provident fund deduction and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rupees 1,24,03,755/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four Lakh Three Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Only) towards contribution to the employees provident fund for the period April 2014 to March 2016. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed an application under Section 7-O of the Act for waiver of pre-deposit pending consideration of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even as the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the first petitioner issued an order of attachment under Section 8F of the Act, while directing second respondent-The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited to pay the determined amount from out of the fund lying in the account of the petitioner in the second respondent-Bank. When the issue was brought before the Tribunal, the first respondent undertook that it will not take coercive steps until next date of hearing i.e., 3.10.2017. Thereafter, the undertaking was extended to the next date.