ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, thereby allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The second respondent firm is covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the “Act”). It failed to remit the Provident Fund and Insurance Fund dues with all eligible components of wages for the period from April 2009 to February 2012. In order to determine the amount payable in respect of the second respondent, an enquiry was initiated under Section 7A of the Act. The second respondent was summoned to appear before the enquiry with all supportive documents. During enquiry, the Enforcement Officer submitted his report stating that the second respondent has not enrolled 26 employees and also not paid Provident Fund, Insurance Fund and Employees' Pension Fund Contributions and Administrative Charges towards Provident Fund and Insurance Fund with all eligible components of wages. The Enforcement Officer also furnished the dues payable for omitted wages, but not furnished the same for non enrollment.

4. The second respondent contended before the enquiry officer that the Washing Allowance, Medical Allowance paid to their employees are not liable for PF deduction. They were paying wages over and above the minimum wages to its employees, EPF contribution, being paid on the basic wages and DA, which is over and above the minimum wages. The wages are split into components such as Basic, DA, HRA, Overtime Allowance, Washing Allowance, Special Allowance for the workers and in case of staff, under the components basic HRA, Conveyance and Special Allowance. Further, the Enforcement Officer has reported that where the employees were drawing a gross salary of less than Rs.6,500/- per month, the wages are split up into various allowances, such as conveyance, dress, outstation, performance, grade allowance, mobile allowance etc., the second respondent is paying the provident fund contributions only for the basic and DA. Even then, the first respondent allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent and set aside the order passed by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent allowed the appeal by relying upon the Judgment reported in 1962 (3) SCR 978 in the case of Bridge & Roof Co (India) Ltd., Vs. Union of India, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the uniform is provided only to workers and not to all concerns in the second respondent establishment. The workers constitute a separate class in itself and all are getting the uniform and washing allowance to keep the uniform neat and clean and as such, the washing allowance has to be treated aspart of basic wages. Further it is held that the Out Station Allowance is given to the workers on their posting out side the headquarters cannot be termed as an allowance earned while on duty for the reason the this allowance is not given to all. Similarly, Special allowance, performance allowance etc., are not earned necessarily by all the employees, so it will not constitute part of wages. Therefore, all components of wages will not form part of basic wage but only such allowance shall constitute wages which are earned by the employees across the board under an agreement of contract. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed.

6. A perusal of the counter filed by the second respondent revealed that they were paying more than minimum wages as contemplated under the minimum wages and remitting contributions for the above wages. As a special gesture, the second respondent was paying allowances as fringe benefit to its employees which is not normally paid to one and all the employees. But the payments were made to one and all the employees in different