IMPORTANT POINT
Payment made under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act does not constitute 'wages' for the purpose of provident fund contribution.

ORDER :

The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the impugned Annexure L order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, SRO, Yelahanka, Bangalore, Respondent No.2 herein;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to Respondent No.2 restraining him from collecting any provident fund contributions on the 17 B wages paid to the Respondent No.3, in terms of ANNEXURE 'L' order during the pendency of this petition;

(c) Grant such other or further relief to the Petitioner as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice."

2. The facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent No.3 (herein after referred to as 'workman') was employed with the petitioner – Company and his services were terminated pursuant to the termination order dated 05.11.2001. Being aggrieved, the workman filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') before the Labour Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner entered appearance in the said proceedings and contested the same. The Labour Court by its award dated 17.12.2012, directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service with backwages, continuity of service and consequential benefits. The said award of the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.10715/2013. This Court, vide interim order dated 04.03.2013, stayed the award of the Labour Court, subject to payment of wages under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. In compliance of the said order dated 04.03.2013, the amount equivalent to the last drawn salary of the workman was paid by the petitioner from February, 2013.

3. The workman filed a complaint dated 02.09.2013, to the second respondent - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, alleging that no Provident Found (for short 'PF') contribution was being deducted from the amount paid by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said complaint, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioner, in response to which, the petitioner filed a detailed reply. Thereafter, upon being notified, enquiry was conducted under paragraph 26-B of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short 'EPF Scheme') by the second respondent and written submissions were also submitted. The second respondent vide order dated 15.07.2014, held that the petitioner is liable to pay the PF contribution. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner – Company referring to the definitions contained in the enactments, contends that the payment made to the workman was pursuant to the interim order dated 04.03.2013, passed in W.P.No.10715/2013 and the same cannot be tantamount to wages for the PF contribution to be made in respect of the said amount. In support of his contentions, he relies on the following judgments:

1. Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, (1999) 2 SCC 106.

2. Swastik Textile Engineers Pvt. Vs. Virjibhai Mavjibhai Rathod and Another, (2008) 1 GLR 670;

3. M/s. Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2012) IIILLJ 697 ORI.

Hence, he seeks for allowing of the writ petition and granting of the reliefs sought for therein.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - workman justifies the order passed by the second respondent and submits that the wages under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act is liable for the contribution to the PF amount. In support of his submission, he relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of R.V.Shanbhag vs. The Federation of Karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industries and Ors, 2002 (1) KCCR 32.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent PF authorities also justifies the order passed by the PF authorities.

7. I have considered the contentions putforth by both the parties and perused the materia