REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. THAISHOLA ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In all these writ petitions, the Petitioners are the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore, and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore.

(3.) In majority of the cases, the Respondents are tea estates located in the Nilgiris District. Upon receiving notices under Sec. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "EPF Act") from the Petitioners, the Respondents challenged the demand for including the terrain allowance within the definition of "basic wage" under Sec. 2(b) of the EPF Act. Contending that such inclusion would impact their subscription obligations, they approached the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal, Delhi, under Sec. 7-I of the EPF Act. The EPF Tribunal, after issuing notice to the Petitioner Authorities, allowed the appeals through various orders. In the appeals involving the tea estates, most of the Tribunal's orders were dtd. 18/9/2014, except for W.P. No. 10296 of 2020, which was dtd. 24/11/2014. The primary issue raised in these cases was whether the "terrain allowance" fell within the definition of "basic wage."