Order
1. Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioner in SLPs (C) Nos. 8781-82 of 2012, Mr Raghenth Basant, learned counsel appears for the petitioners in SLPs (C) Nos. 11438-41 of 2012. Ms Aparna Bhat, learned counsel appears for the respondent Provident Fund Commissioner in all the matters. Delay condoned.
2. These special leave petitions seek to challenge the orders (2011) 2 MPLJ 601, (2011) 129 FLR 1116, Review Petition No. 117 of 2011 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which have declined to interfere in the orders passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gwalior whereunder conveyance allowance and special allowance were included in the definition of “basic wages” for the purposes of payment of provident fund contribution.
3. By order dated 13-7-2012 MAT No. 410 of 1999, another Bench of this Court has granted stay of the impugned order (2011) 2 MPLJ 601, (2011) 129 FLR 1116 by directing the petitioners to deposit 60% of the amount demanded after getting credit to the amount already paid. We are informed that the amount has been deposited with the Provident Fund Office concerned.
4. Ms Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice that in another special leave petition bearing No. 5260 of 2008 seeking to challenge an order MAT No. 410 of 1999 of the Calcutta High Court leave has been granted SLP (C) No. 5260 of 2008. The High Court had not included the special allowance in the concept of “basic wages”, and by its order in Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. Vivekananda Vidyamandir SLP (C) No. 5260 of 2008, this Court has stayed the order MAT No. 410 of 1999 passed by the High Court. She, therefore, submits that thus two contrary orders are operating in the same field, and the issue should be sorted out early.
5. We quite see the merit of the submission. Hence, though we grant leave in these special leave petitions, let all these appeals be listed along with Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011 for final hearing in the second week of August, 2013. In the meanwhile the petitioners will join two of their employees to represent the employees, and they will be served in the meanwhile. No separate formal order in this regard is required. All the parties are expected to complete the pleadings in the meanwhile.
6. Pending disposal of the present appeals, the interim order MAT No. 410 of 1999 granted by this Court earlier will continue to operate. We, however, add that the Provident Fund Commissioner may proceed to make the assessment but no demand will be raised thereon.
Court Masters