The main legal point established is the distinction between regular agreements and industrial settlements, and the principle that the adjudicating authority cannot challenge the order passed by the higher authority.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee of the 1st respondent, challenging the course of proceedings leading to the fixation of liability under the relevant provisions of the EPF Act/scheme with reference to "interim relief of Rs. 300/- per month and "special allowance" of Rs. 50/- per month, agreed to be paid to the workers concerned on the basis of a 'conciliation settlement' entered into between the Management and the Unions, with the clear understanding that, the said amounts will not be reckoned for the purpose of any contribution under the EPF Act/scheme and that the same will continue only till implementation of the minimum wages as per the minimum wages notification to be issued by the Government. The factual position disclosed from the proceedings shows that the appellant is running a hospital at Trivandrum, engaging several employees. The demands submitted by Union representing the Workers with regard to the service conditions came to be negotiated in between, and finally with the intervention of the Conciliation Authority, it ended up in Annexure-1, Memorandum of Settlement dated 08/02/1999, whereby the earlier industrial settlement dated 06/04/1996 was replaced, agreeing to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. As per 'Clause 2' of the said settlement, it was agreed to pay 'interim relief' of Rs. 300/- per month and a 'special allowance' of Rs. 50/- per month subject to the condition that the same shall not constitute as 'wages/salary' for the purpose of EPF, Bonus etc. as mentioned above. There is no dispute that there was any failure on the part of the Management in satisfying the said amounts or that the Workers concerned did not receive the same.

2. While so, the 1st respondent herein, on coming across the terms of understanding between the appellant Management and the Union representing the workers, issued notice to the appellant, to the effect that the amounts paid by the Management to the workers under Clause 2 of Annexure-1 settlement were liable to be treated as part of 'wages', as stated in Section 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the EPF & MP Act) and that contribution was liable to be made to the requisite extent. This was sought to be resisted by the appellant Management, but finally, the liability was mulcted upon the appellant as per Ext. P1 order dated 21/12/1999 passed by the 1st respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the turn of events, the matter was sought to be challenged by approaching the Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by way of Ext. P2 appeal. An affidavit was also filed before the 2nd respondent as borne by Ext. P3. After considering the facts and figures and relevant provisions of law, the second respondent/Tribunal held that the amounts paid by the Management as "interim relief" and "special allowance" vide Clause 2 of Annexure-1 settlement were not liable to be treated as part of basic wages coming within the purview of Section 2(b) of the EPF and MP Act, and hence the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein, was set aside.

3. The first respondent, stated as being aggrieved of Ext. P4 order passed by the second respondent/Appellate Tribunal, sought to challenge the same by filing OP No. 21636/2001. The matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 07/09/2009, and after hearing both the sides, the version put forth from the part of the appellant (who was the first respondent in the writ petition), that the amount was paid pursuant to the "agreement" was held as not sustainable. It was also held that, by virtue of "agreement" executed between the Management and the Employees, the liability to satisfy contribution in terms of the EPF & MP Act, could not have been avoided under any circumstance. The reliance sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in E.I.D. Parry's case was not approved to be followed.