RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE to amend the cause-title of the petition by substituting the name of Reliance Industries Limited in place of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20th January, 2000 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the orders dated 25th June, 1998 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vadodara under Sec. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and the order dated 1st June, 1999 passed by the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner rejecting the Review Application filed by the petitioner. THE petition was admitted and interim order was granted in terms of Paragraph 23(C) of the petition.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2, for the first time, vide its letter dated 21st June, 1996, requested the petitioner to consider Rs. 475-00 given as canteen subsidy as dearness allowance and to include the same in addition to the normal dearness allowance. THE said request was made on the basis that under an Explanation-1 to Sec. 6 of the said Act, dearness allowance shall be deemed to include the cash value of any food concession allowed to employees. Pursuant to the said letter, the respondent No. 1, vide his letter dated 5th July, 1996, called upon the petitioner to give comments in order to take necessary action. THE petitioner vide its letter dated 5th September, 1996 submitted before the respondent No. 1 that the claim of the respondent No. 2 is not tenable in view of the fact that the canteen subsidy given to the employees is not an item of that nature which falls within the Explanation- 1 to Sec. 6 of the said Act. THE respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a show- cause notice dated 4th October, 1996 under Sec. 7A of the said Act calling upon the parties to represent their case in order to hold an inquiry in respect of the said issue. THE petitioner, on 22nd November, 1996 submitted before the respondent No. 1, a reply pointing out that it would not be considered as dearness allowance. THE petitioner furnished all informations called for by the respondent No. 1 along with its reply on 20th December, 1996. THE respondent No. 2 has also made its representation before the respondent No. 1 contending that the petitioner is liable to make provident fund contribution in respect of canteen subsidy of Rs. 475-00 per month with retrospective effect. THE respondent No. 1, after hearing the parties, passed an order on 25th June, 1998 holding therein that, "canteen subsidy being in the form of dearness allowance would attract provident fund, and therefore, the establishment is liable to pay provident fund on canteen subsidy since June, 1996".