Bombay High Court
M/S Nrb Bearings Limited vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 6 March, 2014
Author: Ravindra V.Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V.Ghuge
( 1 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8959 OF 2011
M/s NRB Bearings Limited,
Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner Employees
Provident Fund Organisation
ig RESPONDENT
Mr.S.V.Dankh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.N.K.Chaudhari h/f Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent.
(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)
DATE : March 4 and 6, 2014
PER COURT :
1. By an order dated 25/01/2012, after hearing the learned
Advocates for the respective sides, this petition was admitted.
2. Mr.S.V.Dankh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
that a short point arises for the consideration of this Court.
3. A settlement between the petitioner Management and its Union
was signed on 15/05/2005, providing for a 'Tiffin Allowance'. Clause
No.1.5 of the said settlement reads thus :
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:08 :::
( 2 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
1.5 DEMAND NO. : TIFFIN ALLOWANCE
The Company agrees to increase the existing Tiffin Allowance
from Rs.6,50/- per day to Rs.11/- per day on actual attendance
towards Tiffin, which will be reimbursed on monthly basis.
Other terms and conditions remain unaltered. In case of Full
Shift OT working, Tiffin Allowance will be paid.
The amount shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any
statutory benefit such as Provident Fund, Bonus, Gratuity,
Leave, Salary encashment etc.,
4. According to him, it is clear from Clause No.1.5 reproduced
above that the Tiffin Allowance paid to each worker, based on his
actual attendance, was not to be reckoned for the purpose of any
statutory benefit such as Provident Fund, Bonus, Gratuity, Leave,
Salary encashment etc. The respondent / Provident Fund
Authorities interpreted the said clause to mean an amount payable to
each workman as a part of wages and presumed it to be so. Based
on such assumption, the respondent Authorities concluded in its
Section 7-A enquiry under the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc.
Provisions Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as Act of 1952) that an
amount of Rs.68152/- was recoverable from the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::
( 3 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
5. Mr.Dankh contends that though the said amount may appear
to be a meagre amount, issue is as to whether the Tiffin Allowance
under Clause 1.5 of the settlement would attract Provident Fund
Contribution.
6. Mr.Dankh further submits that the impugned order u/s 7-A of
the Act of 1952 was passed on 30/01/2009. A review petition u/s 7-
B was preferred, which came to be rejected on 26/06/2009 without
giving any proper hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore,
deposited the amount of Rs.68,152/- under protest and preferred an
appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at
New Delhi u/s 7-I of The Act of 1952 which was registered as ATA.No.
582(9) 2009. By its order dated 08/03/2011, the said appeal of the
petitioner was dismissed.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, without going into too
much of details as regards the factory, its operations, the workers
and its Union, has straight away drawn my attention to the view
taken by this Court in the matter of The Tata Power Company Limited
Vs.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, and others in Writ
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::
( 4 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
Petition No.2500/2005, which was decided by this Court on
16/07/2008.
8. Placing reliance on the said judgment, he further contends that
in the said case as well, food allowance was being given to the
workers and the Provident Fund Office included the food allowance
for the purpose of computing Provident Fund Contribution. This
issue has been dealt with by this Court in the said case.
9. Mr.Dankh states that from paragraph no.10 onwards, this
Court has considered every aspect attending to the issue as to
whether food allowance can be treated to be a part of wages so as to
attract Provident Fund Contributions.
10. Paragraph Nos.15,16,17,18 of the said judgment squarely cover
the instant case, which read thus :-
15. One thing that is clear from the decision is that
there has been a practice in industrial employment in this
country where the cash value of various benefits
concessional supply of food grains is computed while
reckoning the charges payable. Under the Minimum Wages
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::
( 5 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
Act the cash value of a concession always means the
amount by which the value of an essential supply is
reduced when supplied. Therefore the term "cash value of
any food concession" allowed to the employee means such
value of the component by which the price of the item is
reduced. This necessarily postulates the provision of the
supply of an amenity such as food grain for, without such
supply, it would not be possible to calculate the value of any
food concession allowed to the employee. There being no
supply of any food by the petitioner, the payment of food
allowance cannot be treated as the cash value of food
concession allowed to the employee.
16. Indeed if the Parliament intended to include food
allowance which is not related to the supply of any food as
deaness allowance it could have simply said so by adding
that any food allowance would be treated as part of the
dearness allowance.
17. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the petitioner supply some food
at a concessional rate and the cash value of the concession
would be liable to be included. There is no material
produced by the respondents and the petitioner vehemently
denies this fact.
18. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds.
The impugned orders dated 28/07/2000 and 06/07/2005
are hereby set aside. The petitioner is not liable to
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::
( 6 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
contribute on the basis of the food allowance under the
Agreement dated 10/05/1995. There shall be no order as
to costs. Petition disposed of.
11. Mr.Dankh, therefore, concludes his submissions by stating that
the issue is no longer re-integra. The judgment in the case of The
Tata Power Company (supra) was pressed into service but in vain.
He, therefore, submits that both the impugned orders deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
......
Date : March 6, 2014
12. Mr.N.K.Chaudhary, the learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the "Tiffin Allowance" was pursuant to the canteen to be provided by the employer. Since a canteen is to be provided, any alternative created by an employee in lieu of canteen has to be construed, as being a modus-operandi to avoid statutory payments.
If the option is left to the employer to subvert the provision of a canteen and instead pay food or Tiffin allowance, it has to be considered as a part of monthly wages and therefore, it attracts Provident Fund Contributions.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::( 7 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
13. The A.P.F.C. / Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal at Delhi as correctly appreciated the facts of the case. The mischief of the respondent is exposed. Tiffin allowance, being a monetary component, has therefore, rightly been considered as a component of wages and therefore the learned Authorities have committed no error in assessing the outstanding Provident Fund dues against the petitioner.
14. I have, with the assistance of the learned Advocates, gone through the petition paper book.
15. It is an admitted position that the settlement dated 15/05/2005 is signed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. Clause 1.5 pertaining to Tiffin Allowance clearly indicates that the amount of Tiffin Allowance shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any statutory benefits like Provident Fund, bonus, gratuity, leave, salary encashment etc.
16. In this factual matrix, the judgment of the Madras High Court ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 ::: ( 8 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011 in the matter of Wipro Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and another, reported at 2007(113) FLR 540 becomes relevant. A similar situation arose before the Madras High Court. Contention of the Provident Fund Authorities was that the food concession payable by the employer was by way of cash value. The canteen subsidy and performance linked compensation was squarely covered for provident fund contributions. Cash allowance for food items were included in the definition of "Wages". Therefore, explanation u/s 6 of the Act of 1952 brought cash value of food concession within the provident fund contributions.
17. The Madras High Court negated the contention of the Provident Fund Authorities and observed in paragraph No.11, 12, 25 and 26 as under :
"11. Any settlement entered into between the employee and the employer under Section 12(3) of the Act is having power of award and the same has to be implemented.
12. There are two judgments on the point of payment of provident fund on cash value of food concession and on incentives and with regard to settlements. ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::
( 9 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011 (1) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras V. E.I.D. Parry (India), Ltd., 1984 (1) LLN 159 the Division Bench of this Court had gone in detail about the nature and the power of settlements.
(2) While quoting from Braithwate and Company (India), Ltd., Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation MANU/SC/0211/1967 : 1968 (16) FLR 237 (SC). That the scheme of payment of reward was in no way connected with or part of wages and it was on these condition that the employees were receiving the inam. Thus, though there was a payment to the employees' and since the payment depended on their achieving certain targets, it has to be held as a remuneration and this payment of inam cannot be held to have become a term of the contract of employment.
25. Since the definition is clarifying that a value of any food concession is excluded from the payment of provident fund and even though the same is included in Explanation 1 of Section 6, the same cannot be demanded because there is a settlement between both the parties under Section 12(3).
26. During the course of argument, the Counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of filing the writ petition, there was a direction by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.9669 of 2004 to pay ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 ::: ( 10 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011 the amount as demanded by the respondents and accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the same. Since the writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned order the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the said amount. The respondents are directed to pay the same forthwith. No costs."
18. In the case at hand, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and its Union of Workers excluding Tiffin Allowance from contributions under Provident Fund Act. This aspect, having been upheld by the Madras High Court, settles the issue. Moreover, the Tiffin Allowance was not a consolidated item. It varied on the actual attendance of a worker and was payable only if the worker remained present and worked in the factory. Wipro Ltd., case (supra), therefore, squarely applies to the case of the petitioner.
19. The High Court of Gujarath in the case of Indian Petro-
Chemicals Corporation Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others [2011 (129) FLR 418] concluded that the nature of payment of Canteen subsidy to its employees was totally different and was not cash value of any food concession as understood and explained in explanation (1) to Section 6 of the Act of ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 ::: ( 11 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011 1952. Payment of Canteen Subsidy was not either increasing or decreasing on quarterly basis or yearly basis and so it could not be linked with Dearness Allowance. Moreover, Canteen Subsidy was basically provided to employees to help them in getting food of their choice, either from their own home or by purchasing it from Canteen, wherever available on limited basis. Hence, Canteen Subsidy could not be deemed to be Dearness Allowance, was not liable for deductions towards provident fund contributions.
20. In the instant case, there existed a settlement which provided for Tiffin allowance under clause 1.5. The Tiffin allowance was not to be reckoned for the purpose of provident fund contributions. The judgment of this Court in the case of the Tata Power Company (supra) has laid down the law that payment of food allowance cannot be treated as cash value of food concession. So also, the petitioner was not duty bound to provide a Canteen facility under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 since it engaged less than 250 workers on any given working day on an average in twelve calendar months.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::( 12 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011
21. The view taken by the Madras High Court in the Wipro Ltd.
Case (supra) lays down the law that food concession or cash allowance would not be subjected to PF contributions. Signing of a settlement forbidding food allowance to be included for PF contributions was not held to be invalid by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of ESIC Madras Vs. EID Parry (India) Ltd. [1984 (1) LLL 159]. This conclusion of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was based on the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Braithwate and Company India Ltd. Vs. ESIC [1968 (16) FLR 237].
22. For the reasons stated above, the respondent APFC and the appellate Tribunal have grossly erred in rejecting the contention of the petitioner company. The impugned orders, therefore, are rendered unsustainable and perverse.
23. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The amount of Rs.68,152/- deposited by the petitioner be adjusted in the Provident Fund account of the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 ::: ( 13 ) Writ Petition No.8959 of 2011 as regards PF contributions being deposited by it. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.) khs/Mar.2014/wp8959-11 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:55:09 :::