- (1.) OUT of these 23 appeals, 21 appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 16. 1. 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1085/2000, 1086/2000, 1087/2000, 5440/1999, 5289/1999, 3140/1998, 3132/1994, 5371/1998, 5271/1996, 1521/1997, 4109/2000, 2167/1998, 3899/1998, 3833/1998, 4891/2000, 3755/1997, 2832/1998, 240/2000, 6690/1999, 215/2001 and 216/2001. The rest of the two appeals, i. e. , D. B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No. 337/2001 and 338/2001 are directed against the separate judgment and order dated 16. 1. 2001 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3890/99 and 106/99 which were dismissed. These two writ petitions had been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the order which has been passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, on 18. 9. 1998. Such order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in the appeals which have been filed by the respective institutions, i. e; respondents in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3890/99 and 106/99 and this order as was passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal was made the subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, but the order was upheld and for the reasons recorded in the common judgment and order dated 16. 1. 2001 passed in 21 writ petitions, these two writ petitions had also been dismissed.
(2.) WHEREAS, all these 23 appeals involve common questions of law based on identical facts, we propose to decide all these 23 appeals by this common judgment and order as under.
(3.) BEFORE we proceed to deal with the grounds on which the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed before us, we may briefly give the history of the relevant enactments and schemes of the rules under consideration.;