((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2417 OF 2004 M/s.Blow Plast Limited Petitioner versus Employees Provident Fund Organisation Respondent A.V.Bokhari, Sr.Adv. with Burhan V. Bukhari for the petitioner. M.S.Karnik for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 25th March 2008 PC : 1. This writ petition takes exception to the decision of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation dated 10th November 2003 directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.7,48,807/- on account of Provident Fund, Employees Pension Fund and Insurance Fund under section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. That direction has been issued after taking into account the emoluments received by the employees towards encashing the earned leave on the premise that the same formed ((-2-)) MST part of basic wage. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the said decision by way of review petition under section 7(B) of the Act. The said review application was also rejected while upholding the earlier view, by order dated 27th February 2004. 2. It is seen that consequent to the said decisions, the Department initiated action for recovery of the stated amount from the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed both these decisions as well as consequent action of recovery by way of present writ petition. . The principal question that needs to be addressed is whether the amount received by the employees of the petitioner by encashing the earned leave forms part of basic wage? That is the basis on which the authority proceeded to fasten additional liability on the petitioner. This question, however, has been answered against the Department in the recent decision of the Apex Court in case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner in Appeal (Civil) No.1832 of 2004 decided on 12th March 2008. The Apex Court on analysing the relevant provisions of law as well as reported ((-3-)) MST decisions, has expounded that the definition of "basic wage" was never intended to cover the amounts received by the employees towards leave encashment. 3. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, the inevitable option for this Court is to set aside both the decisions which are challenged in this writ petition to the extent it takes a view that the amount received by the employees of the petitioner towards earned leave is part of basic wage. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 9(a) with no order as to costs. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)