Accordingly, demands were raised.
Appeal was preferred before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in short the Tribunal which held that it is number a part of basic wages.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court.
1832 OF 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2535, 2536, 2539,2540 and 2541 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In all these appeals companymon points of law are involved and therefore they are disposed of by a companymon judgment.
In each case the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in short the Commissioner held that the amount received on encashment of earned leave has to be reckoned for the purpose of Section 2 b of the Act.
However, it was observed that a different view was taken by the Bombay High Court and, therefore, the respondent in the appeals i.e. the Commissioner should take up the matter before the Karnataka High Court.
The dispute in each case is whether the amount received by encashing the earned leave is a part of basic wage under Section 2 b of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in short the Act requiring pro rata employers companytribution.
