w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ford Motor Private Limited, Former Name Ford Business Services Centre Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory Chennai v/s The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34103TN2000PTC045537

Company & Directors' Information:- H-D MOTOR COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35990DL2009PTC192109

Company & Directors' Information:- I SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2003PTC118851

Company & Directors' Information:- FORD MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120TN1998PTC041070

Company & Directors' Information:- J. H. BUSINESS (INDIA) LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24293DL1999PLC099782

Company & Directors' Information:- S T SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1989PLC047210

Company & Directors' Information:- M G F SERVICES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910DL1987PLC029599

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- S J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1988PTC034427

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP E - SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MN2013PTC008361

Company & Directors' Information:- E M SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090MH2001PTC131924

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L51226WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L93000WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- U V BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300DL1996PTC077032

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1994PTC078529

Company & Directors' Information:- G B BUSINESS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1983PLC036744

Company & Directors' Information:- R P BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210AS2000PTC006302

Company & Directors' Information:- S N M BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC085308

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1992PTC056995

Company & Directors' Information:- S M K MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50103TN2007PTC065370

Company & Directors' Information:- A K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899MH1986PTC268851

Company & Directors' Information:- B V SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC050946

Company & Directors' Information:- M L B BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2000PTC091878

Company & Directors' Information:- G K BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059027

Company & Directors' Information:- I S A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140JH1995PTC006387

Company & Directors' Information:- J F C BUSINESS LTD [Active] CIN = U17125WB1990PLC048495

Company & Directors' Information:- E I C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022426

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z BUSINESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909TZ2008PTC014261

Company & Directors' Information:- FORD INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1995PLC091499

Company & Directors' Information:- S V BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310WB1984PTC038146

Company & Directors' Information:- R R BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2007PTC176588

Company & Directors' Information:- M R BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1994PTC064165

Company & Directors' Information:- A C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070774

Company & Directors' Information:- J C BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101AS2009PTC008974

Company & Directors' Information:- D & B BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC033901

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC042267

Company & Directors' Information:- H S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2014PTC074321

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2010PTC212026

Company & Directors' Information:- P N S BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2005PTC101643

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC168484

Company & Directors' Information:- O P T SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL1996PTC083397

Company & Directors' Information:- P P SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1991PTC051423

Company & Directors' Information:- M S BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH1997PTC111137

Company & Directors' Information:- A P T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29219TG1999PTC031903

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1993PTC003956

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC230905

Company & Directors' Information:- J S B BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1996PTC078319

Company & Directors' Information:- M. L. G. BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2010PTC040398

Company & Directors' Information:- A V S BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31908UP2010PTC040437

Company & Directors' Information:- CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1983PLC036276

Company & Directors' Information:- A N Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071457

Company & Directors' Information:- N B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056484

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00894KA1985PTC006606

Company & Directors' Information:- A C BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45208MH2009PTC197088

Company & Directors' Information:- M. V. S SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2013PTC252172

Company & Directors' Information:- V K BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1996PTC079121

Company & Directors' Information:- S D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1998PTC005293

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND B SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC145775

Company & Directors' Information:- V B BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070063

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA1996PTC019645

Company & Directors' Information:- S P A BUSINESS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29296WB1990PTC050043

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51900MH1989PTC054373

Company & Directors' Information:- D J ORGANISATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1983PLC035710

Company & Directors' Information:- P V BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2003PTC143429

Company & Directors' Information:- B P BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193145

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193917

Company & Directors' Information:- M E R I T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1999PTC118445

Company & Directors' Information:- A D BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2008PTC178245

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2009PTC293633

Company & Directors' Information:- A V R BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74992UP2008PTC034629

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC139742

Company & Directors' Information:- J M BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52390CH2013PTC034292

Company & Directors' Information:- C K BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51399DL2003PTC118289

Company & Directors' Information:- G & J BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2009PTC191846

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040DL1996PTC075731

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND D BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300KA2010PTC053211

Company & Directors' Information:- V P S BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01407TN2006PLC061225

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1946PLC000976

Company & Directors' Information:- D K BUSINESS SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74940CH1992PTC012038

Company & Directors' Information:- U M S SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ1982PLC001208

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH2001PTC132923

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC078465

Company & Directors' Information:- G I SERVICES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PLC184088

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992KL1988PLC005094

Company & Directors' Information:- L & J BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100KL2014PTC036237

Company & Directors' Information:- 3 BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2013PTC239978

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50200DL2004PTC124035

Company & Directors' Information:- B H SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2012FTC227035

Company & Directors' Information:- BUSINESS CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15429UP1945PTC001335

Company & Directors' Information:- A R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2001PTC109578

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PTC092554

Company & Directors' Information:- L B D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00359BR1991PTC004694

Company & Directors' Information:- B-2 MOTOR COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PN2009PTC133716

Company & Directors' Information:- M M BUSINESS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB2005PTC106884

Company & Directors' Information:- L K BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1985PTC038604

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 Z E SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2006PTC039105

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013531

Company & Directors' Information:- B I N A R Y SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC103072

Company & Directors' Information:- M C SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013532

Company & Directors' Information:- D & D SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC093967

Company & Directors' Information:- MOTOR INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U71110MP1949PTC000526

Company & Directors' Information:- S C L SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63012TN2001PTC046650

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1998PTC093545

Company & Directors' Information:- G P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037683

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85320WB2003PTC095712

Company & Directors' Information:- C L BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000WB2014PTC202032

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. V. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999HR2014PTC052304

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U72501DL1998PTC096640

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044009

Company & Directors' Information:- A. P. V. BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14299RJ2017PTC058759

Company & Directors' Information:- S S D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910RJ1996PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2010PTC206211

Company & Directors' Information:- D S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923MH2012PTC226482

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH1981PTC024997

Company & Directors' Information:- F F C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC153348

Company & Directors' Information:- J V B BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2016PTC282145

Company & Directors' Information:- R. B. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC302692

Company & Directors' Information:- Q C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2013PTC148110

Company & Directors' Information:- U & C BUSINESS CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG2014PTC095129

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M G BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909UP2013PTC055405

Company & Directors' Information:- U K BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2016PTC086597

Company & Directors' Information:- B S K A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC198627

Company & Directors' Information:- S N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900JK2014PTC004110

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2013PTC034757

Company & Directors' Information:- L S BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200CH2011PTC033294

Company & Directors' Information:- R M E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC166470

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW DELHI E SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2007PTC165097

Company & Directors' Information:- A Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC239759

Company & Directors' Information:- J N D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC264620

Company & Directors' Information:- P & M G BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2016PTC292097

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 J BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2014PTC269045

Company & Directors' Information:- DELHI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1950PTC001721

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC233958

Company & Directors' Information:- S & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC287145

Company & Directors' Information:- A R J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2015PTC286948

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC242159

Company & Directors' Information:- G W SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U79140DL2001PTC111194

Company & Directors' Information:- B 2 B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140HR2013PTC049213

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2007PTC041783

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200KA2001PTC029768

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. T. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900GJ2009PTC056248

Company & Directors' Information:- B 9 N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KL2012PTC032087

Company & Directors' Information:- V J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29242GJ2013PTC074510

Company & Directors' Information:- N I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202KL2000PTC014355

Company & Directors' Information:- 7-A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2019PTC359011

Company & Directors' Information:- L K E SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2021PTC073635

Company & Directors' Information:- F I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC113001

Company & Directors' Information:- C R D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72300AS1988PTC003097

Company & Directors' Information:- B I M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1974PTC002694

Company & Directors' Information:- T Q M SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1999PTC101341

Company & Directors' Information:- BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1978PTC003277

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1977PTC019880

Company & Directors' Information:- M J B E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL2006PTC150832

Company & Directors' Information:- G S G MOTOR SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U50200WB1964PTC026046

Company & Directors' Information:- FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999MH1926PTC001258

Company & Directors' Information:- CENTRAL BUSINESS CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1933PTC001945

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA Z FORD COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1939PTC002997

Company & Directors' Information:- CENTRAL BUSINESS CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1945PTC004566

    W.P. No. 795 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 958 of 2020

    Decided On, 21 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

    For the Petitioner: Anand Gopalan for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Sundareswaran, Standing Counsel.



Judgment Text

(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the First Respondent from claiming contribution on allowances from the Petitioner for the period prior to 28.02.2019 pursuant to the representation of the Petitioner dated 30.12.2019.)(through video conference)1. Heard Mr. Anand Gopalan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Sundareswaran, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.2. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9152 of 2015 on service of Notice No. CHN/TN/36898A/DIV/20/Eng/ Regl/2015 dated 12.01.2015 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner – 1, 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 interim order dated 30.03.2015 in W.M.P. No. 1 of 2015 in that Writ Petition made it clear that assessment may be proceeded to be made, but demand shall not be raised till the disposal of that Writ Petition. However, this Court by an order dated 17.04.2018 finally disposed that Writ Petition holding as follows:-“11. Admittedly, the challenge in the present writ petition is the summons issued to the writ petitioner to appear in person for the purpose of submissions of their documents and records enabling the competent authorities to conduct enquiry and arrive a conclusion in respect of all the contributions to be made. However, in view of the pendency of the writ petition the exercise is not done for the past three years.12. Under these circumstances, this court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner is at liberty to appear before the competent authorities as per the notice issued to them and place their records and documents and their statements so as to defend their case in accordance with law. The respondents are also at liberty to proceed with the enquiry proceedings conclude the same in all respects and pass orders.13. It is made clear that the competent authorities are bound to follow the Act and Rules scrupulously, while undertaking the process in such matters. However, in respect of the disputed allowances shall not be demanded or effected till the final disposal of the cases 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.14. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”3. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd. -vs- Employees Provident Fund (Order dated 28.02.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3965- 3966 of 2013 etc., batch) while highlighting that for the purpose of computation of deduction towards Provident Fund under Section 6 read with Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act, the dictionary meaning of the term ‘basic wage’ as interpreted in Kiccha Sugar Company Limited through General Manager -vs- Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor Union, Uttarakhand [(2014) 4 SCC 37] has to be taken into consideration, has reiterated the principles laid down in the previous judgments in Bridge and Roof (India) Ltd., –vs- Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1474) and Manipal Academy of Higher Education –vs- Provident Fund Commissioner [(2008) 5 SC 428], as to what constitutes basic wages, as follows:-(i) where a payment is universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all employees across the board, it constitutes basic wages;(ii) where a payment is available only to those who avail of the opportunity, it does not constitute basic wages; and(iii) where a payment is linked to a special incentive or extra work, it does not constitute basic wages.This would mean that the special allowances which formed part of the employees' basic wages are subject to Provident Fund contributions on the premise:(a) that they are not variable in nature;(b) that they were not linked to an incentive to perform extra work; and(c) that they are paid across the board to all employees in a particular category. In other words, it has been clarified that special allowances (and other similar allowances) which form part of an employee's wages are considered basic wages and are subject to Provident Fund contributions, and special incentive or production bonus that have a direct link with an employee's output fall outside the scope of basic wages.4. It is evident from the materials placed that subsequently, the Second and Third Respondent by notices in Ref. No. CHN/Recy/TN/36898A/Regl/2019 dated 04.12.2019 and Ref. No. TN/CHN/36898A/Recovery/DN20/Regl/2019 dated 04.12.2019 under Section 8-C of the Act, have called upon the Petitioner to remit the sum of Rs. 11,76,89,296/- towards Provident Fund dues that has been assessed for the period from November 2008 to March 2014, which leads to the inference that the liability of the Petitioner for contribution for that period has been determined in the interregnum, but has not been questioned by the Petitioner in a manner recognized by law and has thereby attained finality. While the matter stands as narrated supra, the Petitioner has made a representation dated 30.12.2019 to the First Respondent stating that discrimination has been meted out to seek Provident Fund contribution from some establishments alone like the Petitioner for the period earlier to 28.02.2019 when the aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and it was requested to ensure that no claim for Provident Fund contribution was demanded on allowances paid to the employees prior to that date. In that backdrop, the present Writ Petition has been filed to forbear the First Respondent from claiming contribution on allowances from the Petitioner for the period earlier to 28.02.2019 pursuant to the aforesaid representation dated 30.12.2019 that has been made by the Petitioner.5. As already noticed, this Court in the order dated 17.04.2018 in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9152 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner has held that the final decision in respect of disputed allowances shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which that question of law had fallen for consideration then. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has determined that legal issue, it would necessarily follow that the inclusion of the disputed allowances for ascertaining the contribution towards Provident Fund payable by the Petitioner would have to be made in the light of the principles laid down in that binding decision for the relevant periods of assessment made. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the amounts demanded by the Respondents from the Petitioner towards contribution for Provident Fund comprises of the allowances that ought to have been excluded for that purpose. On the other hand, what is now canvassed is that the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would have to be applied by the Respondents only for the period after 28.02.2019, when it was pronounced. Such contention raised is not only factually untenable, but also militates against the fundamentals of jurisprudence for several reasons.6. In the first place, the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is the re-affirmance of the same principles in the earlier rulings as pointed out supra and as such, it is not possible to countenance the claim portrayed as if an entirely different proposition of law has been evolved from what was earlier holding the field.7. Nextly, even if it is assumed without accepting that there has been a change in the legal position by that decision, it has been emphatically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.A.Murthy -vs- State of Karnataka [(2003) 7 SCC 517], as follows:-"8. ....Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. The doctrine of prospective overruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to the normal principle of law, was imported and applied for the first time in L.C. Golak Nath -v- State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643) . In Managing Director, ECIL -v- B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] the view was adopted. Prospective overruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to by this Court while superseding the law declared by it earlier. It is a device innovated to avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. In other words, actions taken contrary to the law declared prior to the date of declaration are validated in larger public interest. The law as declared applies to future cases. (See Ashok Kumar Gupta -v- State of U.P. [(1997) 5 SCC 201] and Baburam -v- C.C. Jacob [(1999) 3 SCC 362]. It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs...."This view has been restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.V.George -vs- State of Kerala [(2007) 3 SCC 557], Ashok Kumar Sonkar -vs- Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54] and Alka Ojha -vs- Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2011) 9 SCC 438].8. Finally, it is settled position of law that a wrong decision granting benefit to one person does not give a right to claim parity or equality by extending such wrong order to others and it would suffice to quote from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Odisha -vs- Anup Kumar Senapati (Order dated 16.09.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 7295 of 2019) as extracted below:-"30. It was lastly submitted that concerning other persons, the orders have been passed by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court and grants-in-aid has been released under the Order of 1994 as such on the ground of parity this Court should not interfere. No doubt, there had been a divergence of opinion on the aforesaid issue. Be that as it may. In our opinion, there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In case the person has a right, he has to be treated equally, but where right is not available a person cannot claim rights to be treated equally as the right does not exist, negative equality when the right does not exist, cannot be claimed. In Basawaraj -v- Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81)], it was held thus:“8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. -vs- Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745], Anand Buttons Ltd. -vs- State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 164], K.K. Bhalla -vs- State of M.P [(2006) 3 SCC 581] and Fuljit Kaur -vs- State of Punjab [(2010) 11 SCC 455].” In Chaman Lal -vs- State of Punjab [(2014) 15 SCC 715], it was observed as under:“16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj -vs- Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, para 8) “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (vide Chandigarh Administration -vs- Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745], Anand Buttons Ltd. -vs- State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 164], K.K. Bhalla -vs- State of M.P [(2006) 3 SCC 581] and Fuljit Kaur -vs- State of Punjab [(2010) 11 SCC 455].”In Fuljit Kaur -vs- State of Punjab [(2010) 11 SCC 455], it was observed thus:“11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia -v- State of Punjab (AIR 1993 P&H 54), in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., -vs- Union of India [(1984 Supp SCC 457)], Panchi Devi -vs- State of Rajasthan [(2009) 2 SCC 589] and Shanti Sports Club -vs- Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 705]” In Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. -vs- State of Uttaranchal [(2007) 11 SCC 641], this Court in the context of negative equality observed thus:“28. This Court in Union of India -vs- International Trading Co., has held that two wrongs do not make one right. The appellant cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case, directions should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right but could be perpetuating another wrong and in such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 cannot be pressed into service in such cases. But the concept of equal treatment pre-supposes existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring wrongs on a par. The affected parties have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative quality. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the above matter, the submission of the appellant has no force. In case, some of the persons have been granted permits wrongly, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the wrong done by the Government.” In Bondu Ramaswamy -vs- Bangalore Development Authority [(2010) 7 SCC 129], this Court observed thus:“146. If the rules/scheme/policy provides for deletion of certain categories of land and if the petitioner falls under those categories, he will be entitled to relief. But if under the rules or scheme or policy for deletion, his land is not eligible for deletion, his land cannot be deleted merely on the ground that some other land similarly situated had been deleted (even though that land also did not fall under any category eligible to be deleted), as that would amount to enforcing negative equality. But where large extents of land of others are indiscriminately and arbitrarily deleted, then the court may grant relief, if, on account of such deletions, the development scheme for that area has become inexecutable or has resulted in abandonment of the scheme.”In Kulwinder Pal Singh -vs- State of Punjab [(2016) 6 SCC 532], this Court while relying upon State of U.P. -vs- Rajkumar Sharma [(2006) 3 SCC 330], observed as under:16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. -vs- Rajkumar Sharma [(2006) 3 SCC 330] it was held as under (SCC p. 337, para 15)“15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha -vs- State of U.P [(1996) 7 SCC 426]; Jaipur Development Authority -vs- Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35]; State of Haryana -vs- Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321]; Faridabad CT Scan Centre -vs- DG, Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752]; Jalandhar Improvement Trust -vs- Sampuran Singh [(1999) 3 SCC 494]; State of Punjab -vs- Rajeev Sarwal [(1999) 9 SCC 240]; Yogesh Kumar -vs- Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 3 SCC 548]; Union of India -vs- International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit -vs- Indore Development Authority [(2006) 2 SCC 604].”Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality.” In Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation -vs- Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur [(2013) 5 SCC 427], this Court held as under:“19. Even if the lands of other similarly situated persons have been released, the Society must satisfy the Court that it is similarly situated in all respects, and has an independent right to get the land released. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and it cannot be used to perpetuate any illegality. The doctrine of discrimination based upon the existence of an enforceable right, and Article 14 would hence apply, only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals, similarly circumstanced without any rational basis, or to relationship that would warrant such discrimination. [vide Sneh Prabha -vs- State of U.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 426], Yogesh Kumar -vs- Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 3 S

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

CC 548], State of W.B. -vs- Debasish Mukherjee [(2011) 14 SCC 187) and Priya Gupta -vs- State of Chhattisgarh [(2012) 7 SCC 433].”In Arup Das -vs- State of Assam [(2012) 5 SCC 559], this Court observed as under:“19. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. -vs- Rajkumar Sharma [(2006) 3 SCC 330], this Court once again had to consider the question of filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised. Referring to the various decisions rendered on this issue, this Court held that filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. It was reiterated that mere inclusion of candidates in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled. This Court went on to observe further that even if in some cases appointments had been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of appointment to another person, as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State had committed a mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the said mistake.”In State of Orissa -vs- Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436], it was observed:“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (vide Chandigarh Administration -vs- Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745], Yogesh Kumar -vs- Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2003) 3 SCC 548], Anand Buttons Ltd. -vs- State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 164], K.K. Bhalla -vs- State of M.P. [(2006) 3 SCC 581], Krishan Bhatt -vs- State of J&K [(2008) 9 SCC 24], State of Bihar -vs- Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 65] and Union of India -vs- Kartick Chandra Mondal [(2010) 2 SCC 422]."9. Looked from any angle, the misconceived relief that has been sought in the Writ Petition cannot be countenanced.In the upshot, the Writ Petition, which lacks merits, is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R