JUDGMENT:- Considering the nature of controversy, the matter is heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Advocate Shri. Mehadia has contended that in application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by, the employee while calculating 10 per cent of the amount of leave encashment wages, there is error and employee has mentioned amount which is actually 20 per cent of the amount of leave salary. He argues that the employee was paid entire leave salary without deducting any amount to the provident fund and, therefore, the employee has received his contribution already and at the most he could have claimed only 10 per cent of said leave wages as employer's contribution which he has not received. He further argues that while calculating the interest @ 12 per cent on this amount, some error has been committed and interest calculated ought to have been only on employer's part of contribution. Lastly, he invites attention to Government circular dated 15-5-1970 by which the State Government has clarified that the salary or wages paid in lieu of leave are not amenable for deduction on account of provident fund. 3. Advocate S/Shri. Mohadi and Parchure for respective respondents contend that the error in calculating 10 per cent of the amount can be corrected by this Court. However, both of them state that resolution dated 15-5-1970 was not produced before the Labour Court and it has not been proved at all. They also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Employes Union Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & another reported in 1995(11) L.L.J. 279 to point out that amount of leave encashment has been held amenable for deduction towards provident fund. They also point out that this view has been followed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education Vs. P.F. Commissioner, E.P.F.O. Mangalore reported in 2004(1) CLR 425. 4. In reply, Advocate Shri. Mehadia invites attention to deposition of witness Sambhaji Dorsalwar for the petitioner before the Labour Court which is at Exh.22 on record of the Labour Court. He contends that Government circular along with circular issued by the Corporation depict that it was very much produced before the Labour Court and has also been proved and duly exhibited. 5. He contends that Government circular along with circular issued by the Corporation depict that it was very much produced before the Labour Court and has also been proved and duly exhibited. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that there is error apparent in so far as calculating of 10 per cent of the amount of contribution which the employer ought to have paid and which the employer has not paid after the amount of leave encashment is held to fall within the definition of basic wages. However, as the Labour Court has not considered the Government resolution dated 15-5-1970 or the general standing order dated 02-01-1971 issued by the petitioner adopted it, I find that question whether amount of leave encashment can be treated as basic wages and will be required to be gone into by the Labour Court. Central Provident Fund Commissioner has also issued circular on 07-7-1960 excluding payment made on account of unavailed leave at the time of discharge from definition of basic wages. The judgment on which respective Counsel have placed reliance interpret definition in the absence of any such circular. The question arises as: one employee may be entitled to particular amount of leave encashment at the time of his retirement while the other employee who has availed leave entirely may not entitle to such benefit. I, therefore, find that circular issued by the State Government will be required to be considered in this situation to find out which is the exact impact of the controversy to ascertain what is service condition of these respondents and whether in view of circulars can it be said that there is any "existing right" in their favour. 6. In the circumstances, the error pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can also to be considered by the Labour Court after giving opportunity to the parties in the matter. Therefore, the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 21-6-2005 in both the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. I.D.A. Case Nos.34 and 35 of 2003 are restored back to the file of the Labour Court for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 21-6-2005 in both the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. I.D.A. Case Nos.34 and 35 of 2003 are restored back to the file of the Labour Court for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. As the matter pertains to provident fund's benefit and employees have already retired, the Labour Court shall decide the controversy afresh as early as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order to it. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 12-3-2007. 7. Rule accordingly. No costs. Order accordingly.