I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Considering the fact that all these writ petitions, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have raised common questions of law, based on identical facts, all the writ petitions, on the request made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The moot question, which these writ petitions have thrown up for determination, is: whether the remuneration, which an employee may receive, pursuant to an understanding agreement with the management of a Tea Estate, for plucking tea leafs in the morning, before the working hours commence, would fall within, or would form part of, the employee's basic wage as defined by Section 2(b) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952?

2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. A.S. Lodh, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 2. I have also heard Mr. N.C. Pal, learned Govt. Counsel, Tripura, for the respondent No. 3.

3. The material facts, which have led to these set of writ petitions, may, in brief, be set out as under:

By a notice, dated 15.06.2010, issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Agartala, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner contended, inter alia, that information had been laid before him that the Tea Estate concerned had not been contributing provident fund in respect of, inter alia, plucking of tea leafs despite the fact that even cash plucking of tea leafs falls within the term basic wage as defined in Section 2(b) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, 'the EPF Act'). By its reply, the petitioners herein, which are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and carryon the business of tea plantation and production, denied their liabilities to pay any provident fund by contending, inter alia, that the 'cash plucking of tea leafs', which was the subject-matter of controversy, did not fall within the definition of basic wage. However, notwithstanding the reply, so given by the petitioners, respondent No. 2 continued with his process of determination of liability of the petitioner.

4. In the situation, as indicated above, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s) for a declaration that respondent No. 2 has no power, under the EPF Act, to initiate proceeding for determination as to whether a new head of earning of an employee comes within the purview of Section 6 of the EPF Act, particularly, when no notification has been issued by the Central Government in this regard. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have also sought for declaration that the demand, raised by the respondent No. 2, on account of remuneration, which the petitioners pay to a workman for cash plucking of green tea leafs, in the morning, before the working hours commence, is illegal and untenable in law.

5. Whether cash payment, made to a workman by the management of a Tea Estate, for extra work done by the workman beyond the working hours, in the circumstances and the manner as indicated above, can be treated to be part of the basic wage, as defined in Section 2(b) of tile EPF Act, is the question, which this set of writ petitions have, as already pointed out above, raised.

6. Before proceeding to determine as what the meaning of the term basic wages is, it needs to be pointed out that the term basic wages has been defined in Section 2(b) of the EPF Act. Section 5 of the EPF Act introduces the concept of employees provident fund scheme for those industries, which are included in Schedule 1 to the EPF Act.

7. Section 2(b) of the EPF Act, which defines basic wages, reads as follows:

Section 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 an