DALMIA CEMENT Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant Dalmia cement (Bharat) Limited assailed the order of the Writ Court dated June 14, 2002 made in w. P. No. 2467/1990, wherein and whereby the writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated december 1/4 1989 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to in short "p. F. Act")directing the appellant to remit certain sum to the respective employees' provident fund accounts.

(2.) MR. Vijay Narayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the benefit extended to the workmen by virtue of the settlement under Sections 12 (3)and 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Chief Labour Commissioner dated may 10, 1999 would not form part of basic wages as defined in Section 2 (b) of the provident Fund Act; that the amount paid as ad hoc lump sum payment in terms of the settlement, which is specifically provided such payment would not classify or attract any statutory provision cannot be regarded as basic wages and that such term in settlement arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act is valid, rather held to be valid by the Court. He further contended that having regard to the purpose of the enactment, an order compelling the appellant to pay the contribution after long period of two decades would not serve, rather further the intention of the legislature.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Vibheeshanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra. The Division bench of this Court in W. A. Nos. 619, 620 and 1953/1999 and 504/2001 dated March 30, 2001, considered the very issue containing very identical terms of settlement in respect of sugar industries and held that the lumpsum payment made under the settlement would form part of basic wages under the P. F. Act. The said judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and in view of the said judgment, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.