MANISH PITALE, J.

1. HEARD.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. These writ petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This group of writ petitions, filed by the banks (employer) as also by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner challenge orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as also the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, pertaining to the question as to whether pigmy agents/collection agents appointed by the banks for collection of small deposit amounts could be covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1952") and whether the Provident Fund Commissioner could enquire into the applicability of the Act of 1952 on such banks and if so, the liability of the banks under the provisions of the Act of 1952.

4. Since common questions arise in the present petitions, the said questions are being decided first and then individual writ petitions will be dealt with.

5. On behalf of the banks, learned counsel led by Mr. R.L. Khapre contended that in view of the award of the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad concerni