CHANGDEO SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners in this Petition have challenged the Order of the Provident Fund Commissioner making certain demands on the Petitioners in respect of the wage component paid to workers after the factory was closed down. After litigation and the matter being remanded by the Apex Court to this Court for fixation of the date of closure this Court directed that the Industry should be closed down. The date of closure was fixed as 31st October, 1988. As required by the provisions of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, retrenchment compensation has been paid to the workers as quantified by this Court. This includes both regular and seasonal employees. It is also admitted position that the employees were covered by the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the Scheme framed there under.

(2.) THE contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that for the Provident Fund Commissioner to make a demand in so far as employers' contribution is concerned the workmen ought to have in fact worked during the said period. In the instant case. it is pointed out that the workmen have not actually worked and as such the demand made is without jurisdiction. Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of India United Mills Ltd. v/s Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bombay and Others (reported in AIR 1960 Bombay 203). Learned Single Judge of this Court in that case was deciding the question whether the amount paid as notice pay can be considered for the purpose of quantifying the Provident Fund dues and held that notice pay not being part of the wages for the period actually worked could not be considered. Reliance thereafter was placed on the Division Bench Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. and etc. v/s R.M.Gandhi. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others (reported in 1992 LAB. I.C. 2110). There the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was considering what is basic wage and whether ad hoc payment grant could be considered for the purpose of contribution or calculating the provident fund dues. The Division Bench accepted the contention that the ad hoc payment would not be considered for the purpose of calculating the provident fund dues.

(3.) IN view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly rejected.