( 1 ) BY the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11. 8. 2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 ("the said Act" for short) by which a demand of unpaid provident fund of the employees of the petitioner Company to the tune of Rs. 6,62,759/- towards principal and Rs. 1,85,186/- towards interest has been raised against the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15. 1. 2004 by which the review application filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 11. 8. 2003 came to be rejected.

( 2 ) BASIC facts which are, more or less, undisputed can be stated at the outset. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacture of copper and copper alloys tubes and rods. The employees of the petitioner Company receive salary which includes certain allowances, such as house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, medical allowance and lunch allowance. It is not in dispute that the employees of the Company do not receive dearness allowance and that the Union has raised an industrial dispute demanding dearness allowance from the petitioner company. It appears that the respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings under section 7-A of the said Act against the petitioner in response to which the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 1 and submitted that there is no contribution outstanding due and payable and that the inquiry should be dropped. The respondent No. 1, however, by order dated 11. 8. 2003, was pleased to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was required to deduct and deposit provident fund dues on total emoluments including the amounts paid to the employees under the headings of lunch allowance, medical allowance, conveyance allowance and house rent allowance. Accordingly, the above mentioned demand was raised against the petitioner. The petitioner sought review of the said order dated 11. 8. 03 which also came to be rejected by the order dated 15. 1. 04 as mentioned above.

( 3 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the respondent No. 1 was correct in directing the petitioner to deduct and deposit with the respondent No. 1 provident fund for amounts paid to the employees under the headings of lunch allowance, medical allowance, conveyance allowance and house rent allowance.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Shri K. M. Patel appearing for the petitioner has contended before me that the petitioner has paid up the entire provident fund dues and the demand is unjust and unreasonable. It is his contention that the petitioner is not required to deduct or contribute towards provident fund on different allowances paid to the employees including house rent allowance, medical allowance, conveyance allowance and lunch allowance. Relying on the definition of "basic wages" under section 2 (b) of the said Act, he has contended that the above mentioned benefits paid to the employees cannot be covered under the term "basic wages" as defined under the act. He, therefore, relying on section 6 of the said Act contends that since the above mentioned payments are not part of basic wages, the petitioner is not required to contribute towards provident fund on the said amounts. Learned advocate Shri Patel has also contended that the respondent No. 1 has erred in observing in the impugned order dated 11. 8. 2003 that the petitioner has not cooperated with the proceedings. It is his submission that the petitioner had supplied full details. He has also submitted that in the impugned order dated 11. 8. 2003, the respondent No. 1 has relied on the report of Squad of Enforcement Officers which was never supplied to the petitioner. Thus the impugned order Annexure A has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned advocate Shri K. M. Patel, however, concedes that since the issu