JUDGMENT:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.-- 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" under Section 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 Section 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 of 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.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that even applying Bridge Roof's case (supra) the view taken by the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court in the present impugned judgment reflects the correct position in law.

5. Sections 2(b) and 6 of the Act read as follows:

"2(b) "Basic wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in either case in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him, but does not include-

(i) the cash value of any food concession;

(ii) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to any employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), house rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment;

(iii) any presents made by the employer.

6. Contributions and matters which may be provided for in the Scheme- The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall eight and one-third per cent of the basic wages dearness allowances and retaining allowance (if any) for the time being payable to each of the employees (whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor) and the employees' contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may if an