2008 Supreme(Mad) 3259
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund
W.A.No.1500 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.No.2780 of 2005
Decided on : 08-09-2008
For the Appellant:Vijay Narayanan, Sr.Counsel, R. Parthiban, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V. Vibhishanan, Advocate.
The adhoc lump sum payment made under the settlement should be considered as part of basic wages under the P.F. Act.
Headnote:
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act - Dispute over basic wages and adhoc lump sum payment - Sections 2(b), 6 - The court held that the adhoc lump sum payment made under the settlement would form part of basic wages under the P.F. Act. The court also referred to various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose between workers and employers over interim relief and basic wages. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the appellant to pay P.F. contribution, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adhoc lump sum payment made under the settlement would form part of basic wages under the P.F. Act.
Issues: Dispute over whether adhoc lump sum payment should be considered as part of basic wages under the P.F. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the terms of the settlement and various judgments to conclude that the adhoc lump sum payment should be considered as part of basic wages.
Final Decision: The writ appeal failed and was dismissed by the court.
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.
In this appeal, the appellant – Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited assailed the order of the Writ Court dated 16. 2002 made in W.P.No.2467 of 1990, wherein and whereby the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 1/4 December 1989 passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to in short "P.F.Act") directing the appellant to remit certain sum to the respective employees provident fund accounts.
.2. Mr. Vijaya Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the benefit extended to the workmen by virtue of the settlement under Sections 12 (3)and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Chief Labour Commissioner dated 5. 1999 would not form part of basic wages as defined in Section 2(b) of the Provident Fund Act; that the amount paid as adhoc lump sum payment in terms of the settlement, which is specifically provided such payment would not classify or attract any statutory provision cannot be regarded as basic wages and that such term in settlement arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act is valid, rather held to be valid by the Court. He further contended that having regard to the purpose of the enactment, an order compelling the appellant to pay the contribution after long period of two decades would not serve, rather further the intention of the legislature.
3. Per contra, Mr.Vibheeshanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.619, 620 and 1953 of 1999 and 504 of 2001 dated 30.3.2001, considered the very issue containing very identical terms of settlement in respect of sugar industries and held that the lump sum payment made under the settlement would form part of basic wages under the P.F.Act. The said judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and in view of the said judgment, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.
.5. It could be seen from the records that a dispute arose between the workers of the cement industries represented by Indian National Cement Workers Federation and the employers represented by cement manufacturers association and was referred to arbitration under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Charter of Demand contained fifty demands including among other things increase in basic wages, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other allowances. Demand No.47 was to the effect that all the employees should be given the interim relief of Rs.800/-per month with effect from 7. 1986 i.e., the day immediately following the expiry of the previous settlement. Pending arbitration, as the workmen pressed for interim relief forming part of demand No.47, an interim award was passed on 21. 1988 to the effect that every employer in the cement industry would pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-to the workers as against the benefit under the award of the arbitration Board. The said amount was directed to be paid in three instalments, the first of which in a sum of Rs.1,000/- has to be paid on 31. 1988 and the second instalment of likesum has to be paid on 33. 1988 and the third instalment in a sum of Rs.500/- was to be paid on 37. 1988. On 19. 1988, under the threat of strike, another interim award came to be passed for payment of Rs.1,100/- to the workers as against the benefit under the final award. The said amount was agreed to be paid in four instalments, the first three instalments at the rate of Rs.300/- each have to be paid on 310. 1988, 31. 1989 and 30.4.1989 respectively and the balance amount of Rs.200/- has to be paid on 30.6.1989. On 5. 1989, a final settlement was