The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the universality test for including emoluments in basic wage under the EPF and MP Act, 1952.

Seeking quashing of order dated 06.01.2011 directing the petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation to pay Provident Fund and other allied due with interest for the period between April, 2006 to February, 2010, the present writ petition has been filed. A further prayer for quashing communication contained in letter dated 24.01.2011 issued for attachment of the petitioner's bank account has also been made in the writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation is constituted under the DVC Act, 1948. The petitioner is a Multi-Purpose River Valley Project and, it performs different sovereign functions. The petitioner takes several steps for soil conservation and generates electric energy through various Thermal Power Stations in the State of Jharkhand and West-Bengal. The Damodar Valley Corporation is wholly owned and controlled jointly by the Central Government, Government of West Bengal and Government of Jharkhand. A notice dated 06.05.2010 was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Ranchi for remittance of certain amounts. In the enquiry under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF and MP Act, 1952), the management of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station of DVC appeared on 25.05.2010 and presented its case and gave details regarding remittance of Employees Provident Fund and other funds of the workers of DVC and CTPS. It was pleaded on behalf of the management that the special allowance so given as per Tripartite Agreement does not form part of the basic pay. In view of the Tripartite Agreement dated 17.04.2007, the terms of the Agreement is binding on the parties. The special allowances paid to the workmen as a result of the Tripartite Agreement do not form part of the basic wage and thus, cannot be included for contribution of employer contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide impugned order dated 06.01.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit contribution on account of the Provident Fund for the period April, 2006 to February, 2010 which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and vague and it has been issued without application of mind.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 stating that Chandrapura Thermal Power Station is not exempted establishment under EPF and MP Act, 1952 and thus, no distinction can be made between its regular employees and workmen employed through contractor in connection with the work of the establishment. The employees employed through the contractor are also required to be enrolled to the membership of Employees Provident Fund in the same manner as the regular employees of M/s Chandrapura Thermal Power Station of DVC are enrolled. It is stated that a complain was received from one Nabin Kumar Sharma and Brij Bihari Sharma on 06.06.2008 regarding EPF deduction and remittance of workers engaged through contractor in CTPS. The enforcement officer made verification of the records of the establishment and recommended enquiry. An enquiry under Section 7 A was initiated and summon was issued on 03.05.2010. An objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised on the ground that the petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section 7I/7O of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.

4. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner stating that the special allowances, revised adhoc payment and annual increment are not the component of basic wage in terms of the Section 2(b) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. A copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 17.04.2007 has also been brought on record.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the Tripartite Agreement dated 17.04.2007 and submits that a settlement has been signed between the represent