IMPORTANT POINTS :
• Basic wages means all emoluments 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 paid or payable in cash to him.

Surendra Mohan, J.

This is an appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10991of 2011 challenging the judgment dated 27.02.2013 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved by an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act' for short). As per the said order evidenced in these proceedings by exhibit P8, deposit collectors of the appellant bank were held to be persons to whom the EPF Act would apply. Accordingly, contributions have been directed to be paid in respect of such employees. Though the appellant had challenged exhibit P8 order before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, as per exhibit P10 order, the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. It was challenging the said order that the Writ Petition was filed by the appellant.

2. The contention of the appellant was that deposit collectors are not “employees” under the EPF Act. Therefore, it was contended that no contributions under the EPF Act was either due or payable in respect of such employees.

3. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the appellant, found that the deposit collectors of the bank were also employees under the EPF Act and that contributions were due in respect of the commission paid to them. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has been dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that this appeal is filed.

4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents in detail. We have also considered the respective contentions advanced before us, anxiously. The question that arises for consideration is whether contributions under the EPF Act is due or payable in respect of the commission that is paid to deposit collectors. It cannot be disputed that, the deposit collectors form a separate class of persons who are engaged by the bank for the purpose of collecting deposits from the customers. The question as to whether such deposit collectors were workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Indian Banks Association vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank [(2001) 3 SCC 36]. Considering the said question, the Apex Court has held that deposit collectors would also come within the definition of workmen in the Industrial Disputes Act. The definition of Wages in Section 2(rr) of Industrial Disputes Act includes commission payable on promotion of sales or business also and therefore, it has been held that deposit collectors were also workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgment reads as under:-

24. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, Mr. Sharma was right when he submitted that on the basis of evidence before it the Tribunal has given findings of fact that the Deposit Collectors were workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the evidence on record it could not be said that this finding was unsustainable. Having been shown the relevant evidence we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly arrived at a conclusion that these Deposit Collectors were workmen.

25. Further, as seen from Section 2(rr) of the industrial Disputes Act, the commission received by Deposit Collectors is nothing else but wage, which is dependent on the productivity. This commission is paid for promoting the business of the various banks.

5. It therefore follows that deposit collectors are workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the question that requires to be determined in this case is whether the commission paid to them would qualify under the EPF Act as remuneration in respect of which contribution was payable. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on