- (1.) In all these appeals common points of law are involved and therefore they are disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The dispute in each case is whether the amount received by encashing the earned leave is a part of "basic wage" u/S. 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') requiring pro rata employer's contribution. In each case the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (in short the 'Commissioner') held that the amount received on encashment of earned leave has to be reckoned for the purpose of Sec. 2(b) of the Act. Accordingly, demands were raised. Appeal was preferred before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') which held that it is not a part of basic wages. However, it was observed that a different view was taken by the Bombay ; High Court and, therefore,- the respondent in the appeals i.e. the Commissioner should take up the matter before the Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, Writ Petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the impugned orders. The present appellant preferred Writ Appeals before the Karnataka High Court which came to be dismissed by the common impugned judgment.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the impugned judgment: cannot be sustained as it merely followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Employees Union v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr., 1995 2 LLJ 279. It is pointed out that different view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. and Ors. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Funds Organisation and connected cases disposed oof by judgment dated 12.10.2007. It is submitted that the controversy was settled long back in Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. Union of India,1963 2 SCR 978 which was followed in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1963 3 SCR 995; and the concept of beneficial legislation is misplaced philanthropy where the statutes and principles underlying it are clear and the question is no longer res integra.;