D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The learned Counsel for the appellant produces a copy of the letter showing service upon the respondents along with a receipt of Speed Post. Let the same be taken on record. The question: The only question involved in this case is as to whether the special allowance, in the facts and circumstances of this case, could be treated as part of the basic wages or dearness allowance in the garb of a nomenclature of special allowance subject to the contribution towards Provident Fund under section 6 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (1952 Act). The order appealed against:
(2.) The learned Single Judge, relying on a decision in Regional Commissioner, EPF, Tamil Nadu and Pondichery vs. Management of Southern Alloy/ Foundries (P) Ltd., 1982 (1) LLJ 28, was pleased to hold that the special allowance could neither be included in the basic wages nor could it be treated as dearness allowance and, therefore, was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund holding special allowance as dearness allowance. The appellants' contention:
(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out from the definition of 'Basic Wages' given in section 2(b) of the 1952 Act that it includes all emoluments excepting those specified clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). Relying upon section 6, he points out that the contribution is to be calculated on the basic wages and the dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any, for the time being payable to each employee. According to him, the special allowance, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is nothing but dearness allowance. He drew our attention to the agreement between the staff and the employer, which are at pages 21 to 26 of the Paper Book. It appears that those documents were signed by the employers and the employees. 3.1. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation Etc. vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1737; The Daily Partap vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1999 SC 2015 and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore, 2002 Lab. IC 1578 (Karnataka). The order of the Provident Fund Authority : The finding :;