The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'basic wages' under the EPF Act and the limitations for filing a review petition under Section 7-B of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the First Respondent in proceedings TN/RO/TBM/ENF/19698/7B/CC-I/T-3/2019 and quash its order dated 09.10.2019 and further direct the First Respondent to entertain the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 7B of EPF Act on 19.08.2019.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondents from claiming contribution on allowances from the Petitioner for the period prior to 28.02.2019 pursuant to the representation of the Petitioner dated 31.12.2019.)

(through video conference)

Heard Mr. Anand Gopalan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K.Ramu, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents in W.P. No. 31515 of 2019 and Second to Fourth Respondents in W.P. No. 949 of 2020 and Mr. D.Sathyaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent in W.P. No. 949 of 2020 and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. Since the same Petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions relating to the inclusion of allowances for assessment of Provident Fund contribution seeking different reliefs, they have been heard together and are disposed by this common order.

3. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 22641 of 2013 on service of Notice No. TB/TAM/RO/19698/Enf/T-2/2013 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Chennai in a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees-Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the-Act- for short), seeking to forbear the continuance of that proceeding and initiation of enquiry. The grievance sought to be ventilated by the Petitioner therein was that a question of law relating as to whether special allowance paid by an establishment to its employees would fall within the expression -basic wages- under Section 6 read with Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act for computation of deduction towards Provident Fund was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd., -vs- Employees Provident Fund (Civil Appeal Nos. 3965-3966 of 2013 etc., batch), and that the outcome of those cases should be awaited. This Court by an order dated 28.06.2018 disposed that Writ Petition holding as follows:-

The notice issued under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund Act is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent now made a submission that during the pendency of the writ petition, the competent authority namely Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed a final order under Section 7 (A) of the Employees Provident Fund Act imposing recovery in respect of all the allowances, in respect of certain employees whose names are enrolled with the respondent organisation, and the defects in respect of the non enrollment of certain employees by the management.

3. It is left open to the competent authority to proceed with all further actions in accordance with the Act and Rules. However, in respect of the disputed allowances which is now subjudice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the same shall not be recovered till the final disposal of the case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The final decision in respect of the disputed allowances shall be kept in abeyance till such time. All other allowances in respect of non enrollment of the names of certain employees with the issuances or the actions of the Acts and Rules may be proceeded with by the competent authorities.

4. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Hence the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd. -vs- Employees Provident Fund (Order d