1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided at this stage itself.

2. The petitioner, M/s. G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited has challenged the legality of the order dated 02.01.2018, the attachment order issued by the respondent No.1, against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2017, passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the respondent No.1 has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 16,31,58,755/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore Thirty-One Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred & Fifty-five only), under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘the Act’ for short).

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be a private Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Amongst other services, the petitioner provides security services by employing guards as its employees. For this purpose, it has established its offices in different parts of the country, including Bengaluru. The petitioner is not employing guards through contractors. According to the petitioner, it has been remitting the provident fund contribution, which it is legally bound to pay for its employees. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, the employees are paid a total remuneration consisting of the basic wage (earned), house rent allowance, conveyance and washing allowance in order to enable them to defray the actual expenses. Moreover, for certain specific locations, which may entail certain difficulties or dangers, “site allowance” is also paid to the employees. The issue involved in the present case, according to the petitioner, is with regard to the amount paid by the petitioner as “site allowance”: whether the same shall be included while calculating the amount of salary, as the basic wage, paid to the petitioner or not?

On 12.01.2017, the respondent No.1, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, issued a notice to the petitioner alleging “Subterfuge of wages”, without assigning any reasons for the said allegation. The petitioner immediately appeared before the respondent No.1, and filed his objections. Subsequently, a team of enquiry officers visited the petitioner’s establishment, and submitted their report before the respondent No.1. Based on the said report, the respondent No.1 issued an order dated 15.12.2017.

The petitioner also claims that when the enquiry officers were visiting its establishment, it had clearly explained to them that “the site allowance” is paid to the employees, based on the requirement of the client. Therefore, “the site allowance” is purely a temporary allowance paid to an employee. The same can be changed, or withdrawn, when the employee is deputed to another site. Therefore, according to the petitioner, “the site allowance” does not fall under the definition of basic wages, as contained under Section 2(b) of the Act.

Notwithstanding the submissions made by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 passed the order dated 15.12.2017, whereby the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.16,31,58,755/-.

According to the petitioner, he has sixty days time, under the Act, to file an appeal against the impugned order. The petitioner had exercised his right to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority, within the stipulated period of sixty days. However, on 05.01.2018, he was informed that by order dated 15.12.2017, the respondent No.1 had directed the respondent No.3, the HSBC Bank, to attach the entire amount of Rs.16,31,58,755/-. Hence this petition before this Court.

4. Relying on the case of M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. VS. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-II & ANOTHER (W.P.NO.32600/2012, DECIDED BY THIS COURT ON 31.08.2012), Mr. Kasturi, the learned Senior Counsel, has pleaded that since there is statutory period of sixty days for filing an appeal, the respondent No.1 should have stayed its hands, and should not have proceeded to attach the