MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] versus VIVEKANANDA VIDYAMANDIR AND OTHERS on 28 February 2019

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (II)WEST BENGAL

v.

VIVEKANANDA VIDYAMANDIR AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011)

FEBRUARY 28, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]

Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous ProvisionsAct, 1952: s. 2(b)(ii) r/w s. 6 – Deduction towards Provident Fund –Computation of – Special allowances paid by an establishment toits employees, if to be included within the expression basic wages u/s. 2 (b)(iii) rw s. 6 for the purpose of computation – Held: Specialallowance was to be included in basic wage for deduction ofprovident fund contribution – Test adopted to determine if anypayment was to be excluded from basic wage is that the paymentunder the scheme must have a direct access and linkage to thepayment of such special allowance as not being common to all –Crucial test is one of universality – On facts, the establishmentscould not show that the allowances in question being paid to itsemployees were either variable or were linked to any incentive forproduction resulting in greater output by an employee –Both theauthority and the appellate authority rightly held that allowancesin question were essentially a part of the basic wage camouflagedas part of an allowance so as to avoid deduction of provident fundcontribution.

Allowing the appeal of the Regional Provident FundCommissioner, and dismissing the appeals of the Establishments,the Court HELD:1.1 Basic wage, would not ipso-facto take withinits ambit the salary breakup structure to hold it liable for providentfund deductions when it was paid as special incentive or productionbonus given to more meritorious workmen who put in extra outputwhich has a direct nexus and linkage with the output by the eligibleworkmen. When a worker produces beyond the base or standard,what he earns was not basic wage. This incentive wage will falloutside the purview of basic wage. Basic wage, under theEmployees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

275

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

A1952, has been defined as all emoluments paid in cash to anemployee in accordance with the terms of his contract ofemployment. But it carves out certain exceptions which wouldnot fall within the definition of basic wage and which includesdearness allowance apart from other allowances mentionedtherein. But this exclusion of dearness allowance finds inclusionBin Section 6. The test adopted to determine if any payment wasto be excluded from basic wage is that the payment under thescheme must have a direct access and linkage to the payment ofsuch special allowance as not being common to all. The crucialtest is one of universality. The employer, under the Act, has aCstatutory obligation to deduct the specified percentage of thecontribution from the employee’s salary and make matchingcontribution. The entire amount is then required to be depositedin the fund within 15 days from the date of such collection.[Para 7, 9][281-G-H, 282-A, 285-D-E]

D1.2 Applying the tests to the facts of the instant appeals,no material has been placed by the establishments to demonstratethat the allowances in question being paid to its employees wereeither variable or were linked to any incentive for productionresulting in greater output by an employee and that the allowances

in question were not paid across the board to all employees in aEparticular category or were being paid especially to those whoavail the opportunity. In order that the amount goes beyond thebasic wages, it has to be shown that the workman concerned hadbecome eligible to get this extra amount beyond the normal workwhich he was otherwise required to put in. There is no dataavailable on record to show what were the norms of workFprescribed for those workmen during the relevant period. It istherefore not possible to ascertain whether extra amounts paidto the workmen were in fact paid for the extra work which hadexceeded the normal output prescribed for the workmen. Thewage structure and the components of salary have been examinedGon facts, both by the authority and the appellate authority underthe Act, who have arrived at a factual conclusion that theallowances in question were essentially a part of the basic wagecamouflaged as part of an allowance so as to avoid deduction andcontribution accordingly to the provident fund account of the H

A

employees. There is no occasion to interfere with the concurrentconclusions of facts. [Para 14][287-F-F, 288-A-B]

Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. Union of India[1963] 3 SCR 978 - relied on.

Muir Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. Its Workmen AIR 1960SC 985 : [1960] SCR 488;Manipal Academy of HigherEducation v. Provident Fund Commissioner (2008) 5SCC 428 : [2008] 4 SCR 772; Kichha Sugar CompanyLimited through General Manager v. Tarai Chini MillMajdoor Union, Uttarakhand (2014) 4 SCC 37:[2014]1 SCR 157; The Daily Partap v. The Regional ProvidentFund Commissioner, Punjab, Haryana, HimachalPradesh and Union Territory, Chandigarh (1998) 8SCC 90 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 482 – referred to.

B

C

Case Law Reference

E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6221OF 2011

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2007 of the HighCourt at Calcutta in MAT No. 410 of 1999

WITH

F

Civil Appeal Nos. 3965-3966/2013, 3967-3968/2013, 3969-3970/2013,T.C. (C) No. 19/2019.

Vikramajit Banerjee, Sanjay Kumar Jain, ASGs, Ranjit Kumar,Sr. Adv., Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Ayush Anand, Vaibhav Chadha,Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Harvinder Singh, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal,Gagan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Alka Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Raj BahadurYadav, Ms. Sana Hashmi, Salman Hashmi, Ms. Liz Mathew, M. ShoebAlam, Ujjwal Singh, Gautam Prabhakar, Mojahid Karim Khan,Anand Gopalan, T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Ms. Saroj Bala,Varun Agarwal, Gaurav Agarwal, Sarad Kumar Singhania, G

H

AMs. Rashmi Singhania, Sharan Vijay, Chandra Prakash, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAVIN SINHA, J.

The appellants with the exception of Civil Appeal No. 6221 ofB2011, are establishments covered under the Employees’ Provident Fundand Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the“Act”). The appeals raise a common question of law, if the specialallowances paid by an establishment to its employees would fall withinthe expression “basic wages” under Section 2(b)(ii) read with Section 6Cof the Act for computation of deduction towards Provident Fund. Theappeals have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by acommon order.

2. It is considered appropriate to briefly set out the individualfacts of each appeal for better appreciation.

Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011:The respondent is an unaidedDschool giving special allowance by way of incentive to teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to an agreement between the staff and themanagement. The incentive was reviewed from time to time uponenhancement of the tuition fees of the students. The authority under theAct held that the special allowance was to be included in basic wage forEdeduction of provident fund. The Single Judge set aside the order. TheDivision Bench initially after examining the salary structure allowed theappeal on 13.01.2005 holding that the special allowance was a part ofdearness allowance liable to deduction. The order was recalled on16.01.2007 at the behest of the respondent as none had appeared on itsbehalf. The subsequent Division Bench dismissed the appeal holdingFthat the special allowance was not linked to the consumer price index,and therefore did not fall within the definition of basic wage, thus notliable to deduction.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3965-66 of 2013: The appellant was payingbasic wage + variable dearness allowance(VDA) + house rentGallowance(HRA) + travel allowance + canteen allowance + lunchincentive. The special allowances not having been included in basic wage,deduction for provident fund was not made from the same. The authorityunder the Act held that only washing allowance was to be excludedfrom basic wage. The High Court partially allowed the writ petition by H

excluding lunch incentive from basic wage. A review petition against thesame by the appellant was dismissed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3969-70 of 2013: The appellant was notdeducting Provident Fund contribution on house rent allowance, specialallowance, management allowance and conveyance allowance byexcluding it from basic wage. The authority under the Act held that theallowances had to be taken into account as basic wage for deduction.The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the review petition filedby the appellant.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3967-68 of 2013: The appellant companywas not deducting Provident Fund contribution on house rent allowance,special allowance, management allowance and conveyance allowanceby excluding it from basic wage. The authority under the Act held thatthe special allowances formed part of basic wage and was liable todeduction. The writ petition and review petition filed by the appellantwere dismissed.

Transfer Case (C) No.19 of 2019 (arising out of T.P. (C)No. 1273 of 2013):The petitioner filed W.P. No. 25443 of2010 against the show cause notice issued by the authority under theAct calling for records to determine if conveyance allowance, educationallowance, food concession, medical allowance, special holidays, nightshift incentives and city compensatory allowance constituted part of basicwage. The writ petition was dismissed being against a show cause noticeand the statutory remedy available under the Act, including an appeal.A Writ Appeal (Civil) No.1026 of 2011 was preferred against the sameand which has been transferred to this Court at the request of the petitionereven before a final adjudication of liability.

3. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General,Shri Vikramajit Banerjee and Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain appearing for theRegional Provident Fund Commisioner and Shri Ranjit Kumar, learnedSenior Counsel who made the lead arguments on behalf of theEstablishment-appellants, and also Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counselappearing for the petitioner in the transfer petition.

4. Shri Vikramajit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor Generalappearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011, submittedthat the special allowance paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff ofthe respondent school was nothing but camouflaged dearness allowance A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aliable to deduction as part of basic wage. Section 2(b)(ii) defined dearnessallowance as all cash payment by whatever name called paid to anemployee on account of a rise in the cost of living. The allowance shalltherefore fall within the term dearness allowance, irrespective of thenomenclature, it being paid to all employees on account of rise in thecost of living. The special allowance had all the indices of a dearnessBallowance. A bare perusal of the breakup of the different ingredients ofthe salary noticed in the earlier order of the Division Bench dated13.01.2005 makes it apparent that it formed part of the component ofpay falling within dearness allowance. The special allowance was alsosubject to increment on a time scale. The Act was a social beneficialCwelfare legislation meant for protection of the weaker sections of thesociety, i.e. the workmen, and was therefore, required to be interpretedin a manner to sub-serve and advance the purpose of the legislation.Under Section 6 of the Act, the appellant was liable to pay contributionto the provident fund on basic wages, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance (if any). To exclude any incentive wage from basic wage, itDshould have a direct nexus and linkage with the amount of extra output.Relying on Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India,(1963) 3 SCR 978, it was submitted that whatever is payable by allconcerns or earned by all permanent employees had to be included inbasic wage for the purpose of deduction under Section 6 of the Act. ItEis only such allowances not payable by all concerns or may not be earnedby all employees of the concern, that would stand excluded fromdeduction. It is only when a worker produces beyond the base standard,what he earns would not be a basic wage but a production bonus orincentive wage which would then fall outside the purview of basic wageunder Section 2(b) of the Act. Since the special allowance was earnedFby all teaching and non-teaching staff of the respondent school, it has tobe included for the purpose of deduction under Section 6 of the Act.The special allowance in the present case was a part of the salary breakuppayable to all employees and did not have any nexus with extra outputproduced by the employee out of his allowance, and thus it fell within theGdefinition of “basic wage”.

5. The common submission on behalf of the appellants in theremaining appeals was that basic wages defined under Section 2(b)contains exceptions and will not include what would ordinarily not beearned in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment.

H

Even with regard to the payments earned by an employee in accordancewith the terms of contract of employment, the basis of inclusion in Section6 and exclusion in Section 2(b)(ii) is that whatever is payable in all concernsand is earned by all permanent employees is included for the purpose ofcontribution under Section 6. But whatever is not payable by all concernsor may not be earned by all employees of a concern are excluded for thepurposes of contribution. Dearness allowance was payable in all concernseither as an addition to basic wage or as part of consolidated wages.Retaining allowance was payable to all permanent employees in seasonalfactories and was therefore included in Section 6. But, house rentallowance is not paid in many concerns and sometimes in the sameconcern, it is paid to some employees but not to others, and wouldtherefore stand excluded from basic wage. Likewise overtime allowancethough in force in all concerns, is not earned by all employees and wouldagain stand excluded from basic wage. It is only those emolumentsearned by an employee in accordance with the terms of employmentwhich would qualify as basic wage and discretionary allowances notearned in accordance with the terms of employment would not be coveredby basic wage. The statute itself excludes certain allowance from theterm basic wages. The exclusion of dearness allowance in Section2(b)(ii) is an exception but that exception has been corrected by includingdearness allowance in Section 6 for the purpose of contribution.

6. Attendance incentive was not paid in terms of the contract ofemployment and was not legally enforceable by an employee. It wouldtherefore not fall within basic wage as it was not paid to all employeesof the concern. Likewise, transport/conveyance allowance was similarto house rent allowance, as it was reimbursement to an employee. Suchpayments are ordinarily not made universally, ordinarily and necessarilyto all employees and therefore will not fall within the definition of basicwage. To hold that canteen allowance was paid only to some employees,being optional was not to be included in basic wage while conveyanceallowance was paid to all employees without any proof in respect thereofwas unsustainable.

7. Basic wage, would not ipso-facto take within its ambit thesalary breakup structure to hold it liable for provident fund deductionswhen it was paid as special incentive or production bonus given to moremeritorious workmen who put in extra output which has a direct nexusand linkage with the output by the eligible workmen. When a worker ABCD

EF

G

H

Aproduces beyond the base or standard, what he earns was not basicwage. This incentive wage will fall outside the purview of basic wage.

8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.To consider the common question of law, it will be necessary to set outthe relevant provisions of the Act for purposes of the present controversy.

“Section 2 (b): “Basic Wages” means all emoluments which areearned by an employee while on duty or (on leave or on holidayswith wages in either case) in accordance with the terms of thecontract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash tohim, but does not include- B

(i) The cash value of any food concession; C

(ii) Any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments bywhatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise inthe cost of living), house-rent allowance, overtime allowance,bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable to theemployee in respect of his employment or of work done in suchDemployment.

(iii) Any presents made by the employer;

Section 6: Contributions and matters which may be provided forin Schemes. – The contribution which shall be paid by the employerto the Fund shall be ten percent. Of the basic wages, dearnessEallowance and retaining allowance, if any, for the time beingpayable to each of the employees whether employed by himdirectly or by or through a contractor, and the employees’contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by theemployer in respect of him and may, if any employee so desires,be an amount exceeding ten percent of his basic wages, dearnessFallowance and retaining allowance if any, subject to the conditionthat the employer shall not be under an obligation to pay anycontribution over and above his contribution payable under thissection:

E

Provided that in its application to any establishment or class ofestablishments which the Central Government, after making suchinquiry as it deems fit, may, by notification in the Official Gazettespecify, this section shall be subject to the modification that forthe words “ten percent”, at both the places where they occur, thewords “12 percent” shall be substituted:

G

H

Provided further that where the amount of any contribution payableunder this Act involves a fraction of a rupee, the Scheme mayprovide for rounding off of such fraction to the nearest rupee, halfof a rupee, or quarter of a rupee.

Explanation I – For the purposes of this section dearness allowanceshall be deemed to include also the cash value of any foodconcession allowed to the employee.

Explanation II. – For the purposes of this section, “retainingallowance” means allowance payable for the time being to anemployee of any factory or other establishment during any periodin which the establishment is not working, for retaining hisservices.”

9. Basic wage, under the Act, has been defined as all emolumentspaid in cash to an employee in accordance with the terms of his contractof employment. But it carves out certain exceptions which would notfall within the definition of basic wage and which includes dearnessallowance apart from other allowances mentioned therein. But thisexclusion of dearness allowance finds inclusion in Section 6. The testadopted to determine if any payment wasto be excluded from basicwage is that the payment under the scheme must have a direct accessand linkage to the payment of such special allowance as not beingcommon to all. The crucial test is one of universality. The employer,under the Act, has a statutory obligation to deduct the specified percentageof the contribution from the employee’s salary and make matchingcontribution. The entire amount is then required to be deposited in thefund within 15 days from the date of such collection. The aforesaidprovisions fell for detailed consideration by this Court in Bridge & Roof(supra) when it was observed as follows:

“7. The main question therefore that falls for decision is as towhich of these two rival contentions is in consonance with s. 2(b).There is no doubt that “basic wages” as defined therein means allemoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty oron leave with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash. If therewere no exceptions to this definition, there would have been nodifficulty in holding that production bonus whatever be its naturewould be included within these terms. The difficulty, however,arises because the definition also provides that certain things willnot be included in the term “basic wages”, and these are contained A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

in three clauses. The first clause mentions the cash value of anyfood concession while the third clause mentions that presents madeby the employer. The fact that the exceptions contain even presentsmade by the employer shows that though the definition mentionsall emoluments which are earned in accordance with the terms ofthe contract of employment, care was taken to exclude presentswhich would ordinarily not be earned in accordance with the termsof the contract of employment. Similarly, though the definitionincludes “all emoluments” which are paid or payable in cash, theexception excludes the cash value of any food concession, whichin any case was not payable in cash. The exceptions therefore donot seem to follow any logical pattern which would be in consonancewith the main definition.

8. Then we come to clause (ii). It excludes dearness allowance,house-rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus, commission orany other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect ofhis employment or of work done in such employment. Thisexception suggests that even though the main part of the definitionincludes all emoluments which are earned in accordance with theterms of the contract of employment, certain payments which arein fact the price of labour and earned in accordance with theterms of the contract of employment are excluded from the mainpart of the definition of “basic wages”. It is undeniable that theexceptions contained in clause (ii) refer to payments which areearned by an employee in accordance with the terms of hiscontract of employment. It was admitted by counsel on both sidesbefore us that it was difficult to find any one basis for theexceptions contained in the three clauses. It is clear howeverfrom clause (ii) that from the definition of the word “basic wages”certain earnings were excluded, though they must be earned byemployees in accordance with the terms of the contract ofemployment. Having excluded “dearness allowance” from thedefinition of “basic wages”, s. 6 then provides for inclusion ofdearness allowance for purposes of contribution. But that is clearlythe result of the specific provision in s. 6 which lays down thatcontribution shall be 6-1/4 per centum of the basic wages, dearnessallowance and retaining allowance (if any). We must thereforetry to discover some basis for the exclusion in clause (ii) as alsothe inclusion of dearness allowance and retaining allowance (for

any) in s. 6. It seems that the basis of inclusion in s. 6 and exclusionin clause (ii) is that whatever is payable in all concerns and isearned by all permanent employees is included for the purpose, ofcontribution under s. 6, but whatever is not payable by all concernsor may not be earned by all employees of a concern is excludedfor the purpose of contribution. Dearness allowance (for examplesis payable in all concerns either as an addition to basic wages oras a part of consolidated wages where a concern does not haveseparate dearness allowance and basic wages. Similarly, retainingallowance is payable to all permanent employees in all seasonalfactories like sugar factories and is therefore included in s. 6; buthouse-rent allowance is not paid in many concerns and sometimesin the same concern it is paid to some employees but not to others,for the theory is that house-rent is included in the payment ofbasic wages plus dearness allowance or consolidated wages.Therefore, house-rent allowance which may not be payable to allemployees of a concern and which is certainly not paid by allconcern is taken out of the definition of “basic wages”, even thoughthe basis of payment of house-rent allowance where it is paid isthe contract of employment. Similarly, overtime allowance thoughit is generally in force in all concerns is not earned by all employeesof a concern. It is also earned in accordance with the terms of thecontract of employment; but because it may not be earned by allemployees of a concern it is excluded from “basic wages”.Similarly, commission or any other similar allowance is excludedfrom the definition of “basic wages” for commission and otherallowances are not necessarily to be found in all concerns; norare they necessarily earned by all employees of the same concern,though where they exist they are earned in accordance with theterms of the contract of employment. It seems therefore that thebasis for the exclusion in clause (ii) of the exceptions in s. 2(b) isthat all that is not earned in all concerns or by all employees ofconcern is excluded from basic wages. To this the exclusion ofdearness allowance in clause (ii) is an exception. But that exceptionhas been corrected by including dearness allowance in s. 6 forthe purpose of contribution. Dearness allowance which is anexception in the definition of “basic wages”, is included for thepropose of contribution by s. 6 and the real exceptions thereforein clause (ii) are the other exceptions beside dearness allowance,which has been included through S. 6.”

ABCDEFGH

A10. Any variable earning which may vary from individual toindividual according to their efficiency and diligence will stand excludedfrom the term “basic wages” was considered in Muir Mills Co. Ltd.,Kanpur Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 985 observing:

“11. Thus understood “basic wage” never includes the additionalBemoluments which some workmen may earn, on the basis of asystem of bonuses related to the production. The quantum ofearning in such bonuses varies from individual to individualaccording to their efficiency and diligence; it will vary sometimesfrom season to season with the variations of working conditionsin the factory or other place where the work is done; it will varyCalso with variations in the rate of supplies of raw material or in theassistance obtainable from machinery. This very element ofvariation, excludes this part of workmen’s emoluments from theconnotation of “basic wages”…”

11. In Manipal Academy of Higher Education vs. ProvidentDFund Commissioner, (2008) 5 SCC 428, relying upon Bridge Roof’scase it was observed:

“10. The basic principles as laid down in Bridge Roof’s case (supra)on a combined reading of Sections 2(b) and 6 are as follows:

(a) Where the wage is universally, necessarily and ordinarily paidEto all across the board such emoluments are basic wages.

(b) Where the payment is available to be specially paid to thosewho avail of the opportunity is not basic wages. By way of exampleit was held that overtime allowance, though it is generally in forcein all concerns is not earned by all employees of a concern. It isalso earned in accordance with the terms of the contract ofFemployment but because it may not be earned by all employeesof a concern, it is excluded from basic wages.

(c) Conversely, any payment by way of a special incentive orwork is not basic wages.”

12. The term basic wage has not been defined under the Act.GAdverting to the dictionary meaning of the same in Kichha SugarCompany Limited through General Manager vs. Tarai Chini MillMajdoor Union, Uttarakhand, (2014) 4 SCC 37, it was observed asfollows:

“9. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com (MerriamWebster Dictionary) the word ‘basic wage’ means as follows:

1. A wage or salary based on the cost of living and used as astandard for calculating rates of pay

2. A rate of pay for a standard work period exclusive of suchadditional payments as bonuses and overtime.

10. When an expression is not defined, one can take into accountthe definition given to such expression in a statute as also thedictionary meaning. In our opinion, those wages which areuniversally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all the employeesacross the board are basic wage. Where the payment is availableto those who avail the opportunity more than others, the amountpaid for that cannot be included in the basic wage. As for example,the overtime allowance, though it is generally enforced across theboard but not earned by all employees equally. Overtime wagesor for that matter, leave encashment may be available to eachworkman but it may vary from one workman to other. The extrabonus depends upon the extra hour of work done by the workmanwhereas leave encashment shall depend upon the number of daysof leave available to workman. Both are variable. In view of whatwe have observed above, we are of the opinion that the amountreceived as leave encashment and overtime wages is not fit to beincluded for calculating 15% of the Hill Development Allowance.”

13. That the Act was a piece of beneficial social welfarelegislation and must be interpreted as such was considered in TheDailyPartap vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab,Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory, Chandigarh,(1998) 8 SCC 90.

14. Applying the aforesaid tests to the facts of the present appeals,no material has been placed by the establishments to demonstrate thatthe allowances in question being paid to its employees were either variableor were linked to any incentive for production resulting in greater outputby an employee and that the allowances in question were not paid acrossthe board to all employees in a particular category or were being paidespecially to those who avail the opportunity. In order that the amountgoes beyond the basic wages, it has to be shown that the workmanconcerned had become eligible to get this extra amount beyond the normalwork which he was otherwise required to put in. There is no data available A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

Aon record to show what were the norms of work prescribed for thoseworkmen during the relevant period. It is therefore not possible toascertain whether extra amounts paid to the workmen were in fact paidfor the extra work which had exceeded the normal output prescribed forthe workmen. The wage structure and the components of salary havebeen examined on facts, both by the authority and the appellate authorityBunder the Act, who have arrived at a factual conclusion that the allowancesin question were essentially a part of the basic wage camouflaged aspart of an allowance so as to avoid deduction and contribution accordinglyto the provident fund account of the employees. There is no occasion forus to interfere with the concurrent conclusions of facts. The appeals byCthe establishments therefore merit no interference. Conversely, for thesame reason the appeal preferred by the Regional Provident FundCommissioner deserves to be allowed.

15. Resultantly, Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011 is allowed. CivilAppeal Nos. 3965-66 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos. 3967-68 of 2013, CivilDAppeal Nos. 3969-70 of 2013 and Transfer Case (C) No.19 of 2019 aredismissed.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals disposed of.

E

F

G

H