SPI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.Ravindran, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. V.J.Latha, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Provident Fund dues for the period from March 2010 to December 2012 calculated on the wages of the employees of the Petitioner had been remitted by the Petitioner with the Respondent along with periodical returns in Forms 3A and 6A in terms of para 35 and 36 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme' for short). However, the Enforcement Officer, who subsequently inspected the records of the Petitioner, was of the view that certain allowances paid by the Petitioner to its employees had not been included while computing their wages for determining the amount of contribution towards Provident Fund. An enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), was initiated and the Respondent by Order No. TBM/SRO/PCY/PC/582/Comp/2013 dated 19.07.2013 determined that the sum of Rs. 2,92,66,601/- was liable to be paid by the Petitioner towards Provident Fund dues. The appeal in EPFA No. 198 of 2017 preferred by the Petitioner under Section 7-I of the Act before the Appellate Authority, viz., Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, was dismissed by order dated 19.06.2019 confirming the order passed by the Respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the same.

(3.) The Appellate Authority has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund (Order dated 28.02.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3965-3966 of 2013 etc., batch) in upholding the claim of the Respondent for inclusion of certain allowances as basic wages for the purpose of determining the amount of Provident Fund payable. In the said decision, it has been highlighted that for the purpose of computation of deduction towards Provident Fund under Section 6 read with Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act, the dictionary meaning of the term 'basic wage' as interpreted in Kiccha Sugar Company Limited through General Manager Vs. Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor Union, Uttarakhand [(2014) 4 SCC 37] has to be taken into consideration and the principles laid down in the previous judgments in Bridge and Roof (India) Ltd., Vs. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1474) and Manipal Academy of Higher Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner [(2008) 5 SC 428], have been approved as to what constitutes basic wages, as follows:-