1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1752 OF 2008 Warana Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Amit Borkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Sureshkumar for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 8th April, 2008. P.C. : The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 24th January, 2008 in exercise of powers under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the aforesaid order an amount of Rs.9,39,263/- has been found due and payable by the Petitioner for 2005-06 and 2006-07 towards contribution on account of leave encashment. The question as to whether leave encashment would fall within the purview of the definition of basic wages under Section 2(b) of the 2 Act has been considered in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 12th March, 2008 in Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner (Civil Appeal 1832 of 2004). A copy of the judgment has been placed on the record. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, notice was issued by this Court on 1st April, 2008 since the issue before the Court is covered by the judgment. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent in pursuance of the notice issued by the Court has fairly stated on instructions that the issue which arises is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 12th March, 2008 in Manipal Academy of Higher Education (supra). In terms of the directions which were issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, there shall be a direction that if any payment has already been made by the Petitioner, it can be adjusted for future liabilities and there will be no refund claimed in view of the fact that there is a running contribution required to be paid by the Petitioner towards Provident Fund and other dues. In that view of the matter, the demand made by the Respondent for contribution on the basis of leave 3 encashment in the impugned order dated 24th January, 2008 is unsustainable. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and and the impugned judgment and order dated 24th January, 2008 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. *****