BIG KIDS KEMP Vs. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-establishment covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'Act'), aggrieved by the order dated 22-7-2008 Annexure-B of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) in a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act, preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, whence the appeal was dismissed by order dated 22-12-2010 Annexure-F. Hence this petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the orders impugned. Suffice it to notice that in the order Annexure-B the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has raised the following question for decision making:

(2.) The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, though noticed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Bridge and Roofs Company Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1963 AIR(SC) 1474 concluded that the EASP and outfit allowance constitute basic wage for the purposes of the Act.

(3.) The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, instead of considering the appeal filed by the petitioner over the conclusions arrived at by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner's order Annexure-B, dismissed the appeal in the order impugned, on the following premise: