REGIONAL P F COMMISIONER E P F ORGANISATION TRIVANDRUM Vs. ADMINISTRATOR COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITALS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner in this original petition. He is challenging Ext. P4 order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal set aside Ext.P1 order of the petitioner holding that the interim relief and special allowance paid to the employees of the 1st respondent is not exigible to contribution under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, based on a judgment of the Madras High Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., v. Regional P.F. Commissioner, Tamilnadu, 1984 1 LLJ 300. On an inspection of the books of accounts of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent found that the 1st respondent had paid to their employees interim relief at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 50/- per month as special allowance in respect of which no contributions have been paid under the Act. By Ext. P1 order, the petitioner directed the 1st respondent to pay contributions in respect of those amounts also. The 1st respondent filed Ext. P3 appeal, which was allowed by the Employees P.F. Appellate Tribunal by Ext. P4 order holding that contributions are not payable in respect of that amounts. That order is under challenge before me.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the interim relief is paid as wages and special allowance is being paid as remuneration for special services rendered by the employees and therefore the same forms part of basic wages as defined under Section 2(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Simply because in the agreement between the 1st respondent and their employees, there is a clause that the said payment would not be counted for the purpose of payment of provident fund, bonus etc, that would not take the amounts out of the purview of 'basic wages'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision in E.I.D. Parry's case is distinguishable on facts and even otherwise, the said judgment is against the express provisions of the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the 1st respondent argues in support of Ext. P4 order. According to the 1st respondent, the payments in question are identical to the allowances paid in E.I.D. Parry's case and in both cases, the agreement between the employer and employees contains a provision to the effect that payment would not be counted for the purpose of payment of P.F contributions. Therefore, the ratio of that decision is squarely applicable to the present case, is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.