ORDER A very limited question of law has been raised by the petitioner not only against the order of the assessment passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds Act, which is Annexure-2 to the writ application, but also the order of affirmance which has been passed by the Presiding Officer of Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. This order of the Tribunal is Annexure-5 to the writ application. Petitioner wants quashing of both these annexures on the ground that the adjudication or assessment made by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is based on a wrong application of law because despite clearly recording in paragraph 6 that only some of the employees were being paid some amount as holiday allowance which has been termed as recreation allowance by the assessing authority, this allowance or emolument has been added to the basic wage, which according to the authorities, comes within the definition of section 2(b). Additional demand therefore has been raised against the petitioner with regard to the so-called short-fall in calculation of basic wage and contributions made earlier by the petitioner. 2. Such a finding having been given by the assessing authority, despite a decision which has been rendered by the Apex Court as to which emolument can be termed to be universal and can amount to basic wage and which does not come within the ambit of basic wage. 3. To make it worse, in appeal, the appellate authority has utilized one yardstick in one case which was the case of Rohini Enterprises and another for the petitioner. The tribunal has very gladly accepted the contention of the respondents with regard to the holiday allowance in the case of the present petitioner despite the finding that such an allowance was not being paid to “all the employees.” A reading of annexure-2, especially para 6, shows that this was so. Why the Presiding Officer of the tribunal is applying two sets of laws and two yardsticks is not very difficult to understand. But these are for the authorities to look into as to what kind of standards has been maintained in adjudication by a statutory tribunal and the Presiding Officer manning that tribunal. 4. Why the Presiding Officer of the tribunal is applying two sets of laws and two yardsticks is not very difficult to understand. But these are for the authorities to look into as to what kind of standards has been maintained in adjudication by a statutory tribunal and the Presiding Officer manning that tribunal. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a recent decision of the Apex Court i.e. the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner, (2008) 5 SCC 428 . The Apex Court taking the history of similar litigations has dealt with the matter and come to a conclusion keeping in mind the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Bridge and Roofs Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1963 SC 1474 . Para-10 of Manipal Academy case is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “10. The basic principles as laid down in Bridge Roof's case on a combined reading of Sections 2(b) and 6 are as follows : (a) Where the wage is universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all across the board such emoluments are basic wages. (b) Where the payment is available to be specially paid to those who avail of the opportunity is not basic wages. By way of example it was held that overtime allowance, though it is generally in force in all concerns is not earned by all employees of a concern. It is also earned in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment but because it may not be earned by all employees of a concern, it is excluded from basic wages. (c) Conversely, any payment by way of a special incentive or work is not basic wages.” 5. If right from the year 1963 this is the principle enunciated by the Hon`ble Supreme Court as also reiterated even recently in the year 2008 in Manipal Academy Case (Supra) then obviously there is jugglery which has been made by the assessing authority and a wrong finding has been recorded even by the appellate authority to reject the claim of the petitioner against the assessment as well as the appeal filed by him. Both the decisions are therefore in teeth of the Hon’ble Apex Court orders. 6. Both the decisions are therefore in teeth of the Hon’ble Apex Court orders. 6. Keeping in view that the so-called allowance which has been included as basic wage in the case of the present petitioner cannot be a wage since it is not universally being paid to all the employees across the board, therefore, the assessment order contained in Annexure-2 dated 20th August, 2008 as well as the order contained in Annexure-5 dated 17th August, 2011 are hereby quashed. 7. Writ application is allowed.