As regards provident fund compliances are concerned, this Hon’ble Apex Court although in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education versus Employees Provident Fund Organization had observed that the amount received by an employee by way of encashment of annual leave with wages is not included in the definition of “basic wage” defined under section 2(b) of the Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act. We have to consider that said case has been decided on facts that all the employees are not availing the benefit of annual leave with wages; the act of payment of the leave is thus a contingency and the employee gets to only encash it at the time of retirement/termination of employment. However, this is not the scenario in our case. Therefore, although the Apex Court has observed that the provisions of the EPF Act are not attracted to the component of payment of annual leave but they have rendered this view considering this component as a contingency payment. In the present case, it is not the scenario as annual leave with wages is paid on a month-to-month basis to the employees. Therefore, the ratio of said judgment gets distinguished on this premise. In addition, even on the principle of universality, it has been conveyed that all the contract labourers are getting the benefit in a similar format. Therefore, it is also not the case that certain employees are allowed to avail of this benefit whereas others get it encashed. Unless, a specific scheme where a certain portion of earned leave is allowed to be encashed and a certain portion of earned leave is allowed to be availed, is framed, in the present scenario, it will be difficult to detach the benefit of payment of leave from provident fund compliances