Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.It is seen from the records that the respondent on getting information had directed the petitioner to remit the dues and to submit the returns in respect of 64 eligible employees who were working in their Cardio Vascular Centre at Parumala, Kerala State. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Ambattur as per para 26B of the EPF Scheme has to examine the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to appear in respect of the said enquiry. The petitioner sent a reply dated 15.9.2009 stating that out of 64 employees referred to in the notice, 38 are Nurse trainees and the remaining 26 are non covered employees engaged as casuals. In respect of these 26 employees, they had expressed their readiness to cover them. In respect of wages, it was stated that the washing allowance and conveyance allowance will not cover within the meaning of Section 2(b).

7.Merely because, certain remunerations such as conveyance allowance and washing allowance are described differently, they will not be covered by the term basic wage under the EPF Act is also an issue which will have to be decided on factual findings and that the power of the authority to decide such matters has already been considered by this court in Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). Ultimately, when the authority decides the matter under para 26B, this court cannot give any direction that certain issues will have to be decided first as preliminary issues and thereafter the other issues will have to be gone into on the merits of the matter. The proceedings under para 26B is summary in nature and it is not for this court to give any such direction to the authority to decide a particular issue as preliminary issue. Therefore, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.