REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER TAMIL NADU AND PONDICHERRY STATE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Vs. WIPRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22. 9. 2006 made in W. P. No. 3299 of 1999, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, while setting aside the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 24. 11. 1998 in Appeal No. ATA-13 (83)98 and also the order of the appellant dated 14. 7. 1998.

(2.) BETWEEN the employees of the first respondent and the first respondent/employer there was a settlement entered into under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which the then existing canteen subsidy was agreed to remain unchanged till the end of one year from the date of settlement, which was entered on 7. 8. 1990, 21. 10. 1994 and 1. 12. 1997. As per one of the clauses of the settlement, it was agreed that the canteen subsidy would not attract provident fund and the said canteen subsidy was stated to be an alternate to providing canteen and that the benefit of the canteen subsidy would be withdrawn at the will of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein.

(3.) IT is the contention of Mr. K. Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/department that the EPF Act, being a social welfare legislation, should be liberally interpreted, especially in the context of Section 6 of the Act, which has overriding effect. It is his further submission that by virtue of Explanation to Section 6 of the EPF Act, "dearness allowance" is deemed to include with the term "basic wages", and the value of any food concession allowed to the employee also should be included. Therefore, according to him, the said Explanation takes away the ambit of Section 2 (b) (i) of the EPF Act, which specifically excludes the cash value of any food concession.