EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. ARIHANT SPINNING MILLS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material parts of the paper-book presented in the petition.

(2.) I have no reason to disagree with the findings of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against which this petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that it deserves to be set aside on the grounds taken up. The learned Tribunal has held in paragraph 14 of the impugned order dated 14th July, 2016 (Annex. P-5) as under :-

(3.) While reaching the conclusion, the learned Tribunal has relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Assistant PF Commissioner Vs. G4S Securities Services (India) Limited 2011 LLR 316 to which Mr. Tangri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits per contra that the ruling is distinguishable as it does not notice the notification dated 17th Feb., 2012 (Annex. P-1). The said notification has been issued by the Punjab Government by amending a previous notification dated 6th Jan., 2009 to the effect that the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Government of Punjab shall be the basic rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Punjab Government notification serves a special purpose which does not touch upon the field occupied by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and schemes framed thereunder. The Act defines basic wages in Sec. 2 (b) of 1952 Act the scope of which is wide and would redound to the allowances mentioned in paragraph 14 of the order of the Tribunal. Besides, I find no prejudice has been caused to the petitioning organization by the order impugned when it extends basic wages to those enumerated in the order as reflected from the records of the respondent-Company and the manner in which they pay money to their employees. Sec. 2(b) reads as follows :-