Judgment 1. THE writ petition is directed against two notices of demand dated 10th February, 1992 and 19th August, 1992, issued by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, The Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and runs and manages an educational institution known as "gyan Bharti Vidyapith". The management of the school pays its approved teachers their basic salary, house rent allowance, medical allowance and 8-1/3 per cent Provident Fund on the basic salary. The approved staff members including teachers also receive a Government Dearness Allowance from the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) at the State Government prescribed rates. Director of Secondary Education issued a memo dated 23.9.1980 for enabling the teachers and the staff of the school to receive the benefit of dearness Allowance and additional interim reliefs. For the purpose of drawing such dearness Allowance a statement in form 'b' is prepared by the school office and the same is submitted to the office of the D. I. of Schools (S. E.) Calcutta. By an order of this court in a writ petition filed by the petitioners, the D. I. of Schools (S. E.)appointed a drawing and disbursing officer for the purpose of disbursement of money among the approved teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. The school office prepared monthly statement showing pay and allowance of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. The school office prepared monthly statement showing pay and allowance of teaching and non-teaching staff and that is signed by the members of the school as well as the drawing and disbursing officer. Government cheques are then issued by the drawing and disbursing officer in favour of the approved staff members of the school. The Accountant General, West Bengal issued one cheque of the entire amount in favour of the drawing and disbursing officer of the school who deposits the same in his account in the State Bank of India for disbursement to the concerned teaching and non-teaching staff. The Accountant General, West Bengal issued one cheque of the entire amount in favour of the drawing and disbursing officer of the school who deposits the same in his account in the State Bank of India for disbursement to the concerned teaching and non-teaching staff. The petitioner has alleged that since it has no role towards payment of Dearness Allowance to its staff members, which entirely rests with the Government, the provisions of the employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act') has no application in so far that relates to the demand of payment of such dues on account of Dearness Allowance to its staff members on and from March 6,1982. 2. IT has also been alleged that the Dearness Allowance is paid by the Government and it is not payable by the employer. It has been further alleged, that neither Section 6 of the Act nor para 29 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, support the claim of the Provident Fund authorities. Dearness allowance is paid by the State government from its own coffer and such payment of money to its approved staff cannot be taken to be a liability of the school authorities. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for a declaration that it has no obligation of any kind whatsoever to make payment of Provident Fund contribution under the act or the scheme framed thereunder for the D. A. , part of the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff and a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw or cancel the notices referred to above alongwith other reliefs. 3. THE petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit in respect of the subsequent notice dt. 19. 8. 92 making a further claim in respect of the above dues by the Provident Fund authorities and challenged issue of such notice on the grounds referred to above. 4. TWO affidavits-in-opposition were filed by respondent no. 6 denying the allegations of the petitioner. THE petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit in respect of the subsequent notice dt. 19. 8. 92 making a further claim in respect of the above dues by the Provident Fund authorities and challenged issue of such notice on the grounds referred to above. 4. TWO affidavits-in-opposition were filed by respondent no. 6 denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is alleged that since the school is receiving Dearness allowance for its teachers and staff from the Government and since under Section 6 of the Act the Provident Fund contribution is payable on wages which includes not only the basic pay but also the dearness allowance and other allowances, that the school authority cannot evade its liability for payment of P. F. contribution to its approved teachers and staff. It is also alleged that the school is an aided school as it is receiving aid from the Government in the shape of receipt of dearness allowance and accordingly the school cannot evade its liability for payment of provident fund to its staff including the teachers. An affidavit-in-opposition was also filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 where it was alleged that the petitioner being the appointing authority of its teaching and non-teaching staff, it is bound to deduct provident fund from their wages which includes the dearness allowance in terms of Section 6 of the Act and remit the same to the provident fund authorities. It was further alleged that the petitioner committed criminal offence under the provisions of this Act by not depositing such contribution to the P. F. authorities. The respondents accordingly prayed for disposal of the application filed by the writ petitioner. 5. HEARD the submissions of Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and mr. Lakshmi Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 6. IN so far as the factual aspect of the matter, as disclosed in the writ petition, there is virtually no dispute between the parties. The teachers and staff of the school are admittedly receiving their basic pay as per terms of their original contract from the management of the school, dearness allowance part of the salary being paid by the Government. The teachers and staff of the school are admittedly receiving their basic pay as per terms of their original contract from the management of the school, dearness allowance part of the salary being paid by the Government. The only question that falls for consideration in this writ application is whether the school authorities are liable to pay the P. F. dues of the teachers and staff not only for the basic wages and the house rent allowance for which it is making contribution but also for the dearness allowance, part of their salary which is admittedly being paid by the Government. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the school authority is neither liable to deduct any amount for payment of money due on account of dearness allowance nor liable to deposit such contribution with the P. F. authorities inasmuch as the school authority cannot be said to have any liability to pay the dearness allowance as per terms of the original contract entered into between the school authority and the individual staff including teachers. He further submitted that it is absolutely discretionary for the Government to pay the dearness allowance and it can unilaterally reduce the same. He also submitted that there being no fixity as regards the amount and time of making such payment by the government, the school authority cannot have any fore-knowledge as to what amount should be paid or deducted for the purpose. He also submitted that deduction of any amount on the basis of future payment cannot be made. 7. MR. A. K. Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent P. F. authorities, submitted that under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and Para 29 of the P. F. scheme the employer is bound to make provident fund contribution on the wages of the teacher and staff. Such wages include not only their basic pay but also their dearness allowance and other allowances. He also referred to Para 29 of the P. F. scheme which gives the guideline as to how the contribution shall be calculated. It is stated there that "the contribution shall be calculated on the basis of the basic wages, dearness allowance (including the cash value of any food concession) and retaining allowance (if any) actually drawn during the whole month whether paid on daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis". Mr. It is stated there that "the contribution shall be calculated on the basis of the basic wages, dearness allowance (including the cash value of any food concession) and retaining allowance (if any) actually drawn during the whole month whether paid on daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis". Mr. Gupta also referred to Section 12 of the said Act which lays down that the wages of an employee to whom the scheme applies the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age Pension, Gratuity, Provident fund or Life Insurance to which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment, cannot be reduced. In other words, it was submitted by Mr. Gupta that if the dearness allowance is excluded from the ambit of provident fund that will reduce the benefit of the teachers and the staff of the school. 8. MR. Lakshmi Gupta, learned advocate for respondent No. 6 submitted that in terms of the order passed by this court in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners a drawing and disbursing officer was appointed for enabling the staff and teachers of the school to get their Dearness Allowance at the prescribed rates. It was further submitted that since the school authority prepares the statement of salary and dearness allowance payable to the individual teacher and the staff, the petitioner cannot take the plea of ignorance of the amount payable to such teachers and the staff. He further submitted that the liability of the school authority to deposit the wages of its teachers and staff being a statutory liability the school authority is bound to deposit the same amount. There is no doubt that the dearness allowance of the teachers and staff of the school is not paid on regular basis and it is also true that it cannot be paid to the teachers or the staff on each month as it falls due. It is also true that the school authority has no control over the amount remitted as consolidated dearness allowance by the Government by cheque for disbursement in favour of each of the staff and teacher. It is also an admitted fact that the school authority has not undertaken any responsibility for payment of any dearness allowance and the government fixes the rate of such dearness allowance from time to time for payment of the same to the teachers and staff of the school. It is also an admitted fact that the school authority has not undertaken any responsibility for payment of any dearness allowance and the government fixes the rate of such dearness allowance from time to time for payment of the same to the teachers and staff of the school. The question is whether in such circumstances the basic pay and the dearness allowance has to be considered as the salary or wage of the teachers and staff of the school. 9. THE school management being admittedly the employer of the teachers and the staff of the school and the dearness allowance part of their salary forming an inseparable element of such salary, the statutory liability for payment of provident fund contribution on the wages or salary under Section 6 of the Act cannot be avoided by the employer. The term 'wage' of an employee includes basic pay and dearness allowance and other allowances. The section having made it obligatory for the employer to deposit such contribution the question of making such contribution for any part of the salary by the Government does not arise firstly, because it is not the employer and secondly because the law does not permit such payment from two different sources. 10. THE matter may also be considered from another view point. The institution being admittedly affiliated to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, it is to be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Regarding payment of dearness allowance to the teachers and staff of the affiliated schools necessary circulars are issued from time to time which are to be followed by all affiliated schools including 'gyan Bharti Vidyapith', It cannot accordingly be said that the school authority has no obligation to pay the dearness allowance as that is paid by the Government. The initial obligation for payment of such dearness allowance always rests with the school authority and the Government by making payment from time to time helps it to meet such obligation as it is not that financially sound to pay the same. Because of such aid by the Government the school authority cannot be allowed to take the plea that it has no liability to pay the dearness allowance payable to teachers and staff of the institution in terms of the Government circulars. Because of such aid by the Government the school authority cannot be allowed to take the plea that it has no liability to pay the dearness allowance payable to teachers and staff of the institution in terms of the Government circulars. Deduction of provident dues from the wages, which includes dearness allowance, being thus the responsibility of the employer, the School authority is bound to remit the same to the P. F. authorities in accordance with law from the salary of the teachers and the staff. It should be noted that an absurd situation will be created if a different view is taken in this matter because the statutory liability of payment of the wages remaining with the employer, it cannot be divided in two parts, one for contribution on basic salary and the other on dearness allowance. It may be that such payment of dearness allowance is not made in time but belated payment is also payment. In the fitness of things, such belated payment may naturally occur as the pay bills after preparation by the school office are to be sent to the Government which after due scrutiny will be sanctioned. Variation of the amount paid as dearness allowance from time to time or late payment of the same will be of no consequence as the liability of the employer to pay P. F. dues upon the wages including dearness allowance remains the principal liability of the employer alone. 11. IN the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this writ application. No relief shall, accordingly, be available to the writ petitioner in this case. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 12. ON the prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioner there will be a stay of operation of this order for a period of four weeks. Application Dismissed.