FORD MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anand Gopalan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Sundareswaran, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9152 of 2015 on service of Notice No. CHN/TN/36898A/DIV/20/Eng/ Regl/2015 dtd. 12/1/2015 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - 1, Chennai in a proceeding under Sec. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), seeking to forbear the continuance of that proceeding and initiation of enquiry. The grievance sought to be ventilated by the Petitioner therein was that a question of law relating as to whether special allowance paid by an establishment to its employees would fall within the expression 'basic wages' under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 2(b)(ii) of the Act for computation of deduction towards Provident Fund was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd., vs. Employees Provident Fund (Civil Appeal Nos. 3965- 3966 of 2013 etc., batch), and that the outcome of those cases should be awaited. This Court by an interim order dtd. 30/3/2015 in W.M.P. No. 1 of 2015 in that Writ Petition made it clear that assessment may be proceeded to be made, but demand shall not be raised till the disposal of that Writ Petition. However, this Court by an order dtd. 17/4/2018 finally disposed that Writ Petition holding as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund (Order dtd. 28/2/2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3965- 3966 of 2013 etc., batch) while highlighting that for the purpose of computation of deduction towards Provident Fund under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 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, has reiterated 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], as to what constitutes basic wages, as follows:-