Point of Law: Employee - Basic Wages - “Basic wages” means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in either case in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. These two writ petitions are connected; therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. These writ petitions are filed by Mangalam Publications (India) Private Limited.

2. First, I will narrate the facts in W.P. (C) No. 34720/2010. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 engaged in the business of printing and publishing newspapers and other periodicals. The petitioner's establishment is a covered establishment under The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘Act 1952’). The MCM Press, Kottayam, even after its takeover by the petitioner, was continuing under separate Code No. KR/5973 till March, 2003. The Code Number allotted to the petitioner in respect of its other employees was KR/5975. According to the petitioner, they are paying PF contributions for all its eligible employees, including employees covered under Code No. KR/5973 and under Code No. KR/5975 after March, 2003.

3. After constituting the Manisana Wage Board, the Central Government issued two notifications dated 24.9.1996; one was providing interim relief to the working journalists and the other to the non-journalists, newspaper employees and news agency employees. According to the petitioner, since the interim relief does not constitute the ‘basic wage’ as defined under the Act, 1952, the petitioner did not pay P.F. contributions on the interim relief paid in respect of its employees including the employees covered under Code No. KR/5973. Immediately after the notification dated 24.9.1996 issued by the Central Government, newspaper establishments sought the assistance of the Indian Newspaper Society to get clarification from the Central Government regarding the consequential benefits such as provident fund, bonus etc. on the interim reliefs. It is the case of the petitioner that by quoting a letter dated 17.12.1996 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the Indian Newspaper Society as per its letter dated 20.12.1996, informed that the consequential benefits such as provident fund, bonus etc. are not payable on interim reliefs. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the 2nd respondent herein, initiated action for recovery of P.F. contributions on the interim relief paid in respect of the employees of the petitioner who are covered under Code No. KR/5973 and KR/5975 by invoking Section 7-A of the Act, 1952. Two enquiries were started. The enquiry under Section 7-A relating to interim relief paid to the employees covered under Code No. KR/5975 was taken up first. The petitioner objected to the assessment of the P.F. contributions on the interim relief. The 2nd respondent passed an order holding that the interim relief would constitute basic wages under the Act, 1952 and directed the petitioner to pay P.F. contribution of Rs. 6,76,086.85 on the interim relief paid to the employees of the petitioner covered under Code No. KR/5975. It is submitted that against the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952. The 2nd respondent also took up Section 7-A enquiry relating to the interim relief paid to the employees under Code No. KR/5973. It is the case of the petitioner that they had submitted their objections in this matter inter-alia contending that the interim relief will not constitute ‘basic wages’ as defined under the Act, 1952. According to the petitioner, without considering their contentions, the 2nd respondent assessed P.F contributions on the interim relief paid to the employees covered by KR/5973 and fixed a contribution of Rs.1,30,132.25 as per order dated 23.3.2004. Ext.P1 is the order. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the trade union representing the employees of the petitioner had signed a conciliation settlement dated 27.06.2001 regarding the Manisa