1. In these 10 writ petitions, the petitioners are different employers covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short PF Act). Some of the petitioners are also multi national companies doing their business in India.

2. A common question that arises for consideration in all the 10 writ petitions is that various allowances paid by the petitioners to their employees under different heads, such as conveyance, educational allowances, food concessions, medical, special holidays, night shift incentives, city compensatory allowances were amounting to wages within the meaning of the term 'basic wage' as per Section 2(b) of the PF Act covered for deductions towards the Provident Fund.

3. In W.P.Nos.15823, 22480, 25442 and 25443 of 2010 and 3427 of 2011, the petitioners have come forward to challenge the notices issued under Section 7-A of the PF Act on various dates and it had not culminated into final orders. The petitioners were merely directed to produce various records to decide the question whether particular payment made by the petitioners to their employees would be covered by the term "basic wage" for the purpose of deduction towards Provident Fund subscription.

4. Under Section 7-A(3), no orders can be passed unless the employer concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of representing their case. Even if an adverse order is passed, the aggrieved employer can file a review under Section 7-B with the same authority. Thereafter, a further appeal lies to the EPF Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I. When there is hierarchy of authorities in deciding the matters raised herein, including comprehensive appeal to the judicial tribunal, it is unthinkable as to how the petitioners can file writ petitions even at the stage of show cause notice under Section 7-A. The issues raised herein are not purely legal issues, but mixed questions of facts and law involved.

5. The petitioners' stand is that they are seeking this court to give an authoritative ruling by holding certain allowances will not constitute wages under Section 2(b), then it will be binding on the authorities and that the employers can arrange their affairs based on the said ruling. The said request may look attractive. However, this court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot clutch on to a jurisdiction which it does not have. The limited power of the judicial review can be exercised only when statutory authorities make an order and still it required an appropriate correction by way of judicial review. The petitioners cannot construe the High Court exercising power under Article 226 as an advance ruling authority as provided in some taxing statutes. In fact, by the exercise of power under Article 226, the Court cannot give ruling based on apprehension or on academic issues. It is preciously for this reason, the authorities have been created under the Act and also a judicial appellate Tribunal has been constituted.

6. In none of the cases cited by the petitioners, the Court had directly entertained a writ petition even before facts could be marshalled and findings given by the PF Commissioner. Before the amendment made to the PF Act by Amending Act 33/1988 (with effect from 1.7.1997), there was no scope for any appeal. Only the Central Government was given powers to remove difficulties under Section 19-A and to determine the matters in cases of doubt. But, with the introduction of Amending Act 33 of 1988, extensive amendments have been made, whereby determination by the PF Commissioner can be made only after hearing the parties, but power of review was also given under Section 7-B with a further right of appeal to a judicial Tribunal under Section 7-I. The appeal power is a comprehensive power and the Tribunal constituted under the Act can go into both questions of law and facts. The decisions relied were all cases where the initial determination was made either by the C