The terrain allowance is not included in 'basic wages' as defined by the EPF Act due to its inconsistency among employees; thus, it is exempt from EPF contributions.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

Heard.

2. In all these writ petitions, the Petitioners are the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore, and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore.

3. In majority of the cases, the Respondents are tea estates located in the Nilgiris District. Upon receiving notices under Section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "EPF Act") from the Petitioners, the Respondents challenged the demand for including the terrain allowance within the definition of "basic wage" under Section 2 (b) of the EPF Act. Contending that such inclusion would impact their subscription obligations, they approached the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal, Delhi, under Section 7 -I of the EPF Act. The EPF Tribunal, after issuing notice to the Petitioner Authorities, allowed the appeals through various orders. In the appeals involving the tea estates, most of the Tribunal's orders were dated 18.09.2014, except for W.P. No. 10296 of 2020, which was dated 24.11.2014. The primary issue raised in these cases was whether the "terrain allowance" fell within the definition of "basic wage."

4. In another set of cases, involving textile mills, a cooperative bank, and a pharmaceutical company, the appeals challenged orders passed by the Petitioner Authorities under Section 14 -B of the EPF Act. The EPF Tribunal, upon hearing these appeals, either interfered with the imposition of damages or reduced the rate of interest. However, different parties were granted different forms of relief, and the orders were issued on various dates.

5. It is necessary to refer the appeals in which the issue under Section 14 -B was raised, along with the reliefs granted by the Tribunal, the date of the Tribunal's order, and the year in which the Petitioner Department filed the writ petition.

6. It is alarming that the Petitioner EPF Department has approached this Court with an inordinate delay ranging from 6 to 11 years. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore, who is the Petitioner in most of these writ petitions, has provided a generic and repetitive explanation for the delay in paragraph 14 of the affidavit, which reads as follows:

“It is submitted that the documents were handed over to the earlier panel counsel for the petitioner. Due to ill health, he did not file the writ petition challenging the order of tribunal in time. The same was come to know recently, immediately. The petitioner received the back bundle and entrusted the case to the present counsel. The delay in filing the writ petition is neither wilful nor wanton. The delay is not condoned the poor employees will be put irreparable loss and hardship.”

7. In Writ Petition No. 10036 of 2020, where the writ petition was filed in the name of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the affidavit was sworn by A. Ravikumar, son of A. Jagannathan, who claimed to be the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Coimbatore. However, in the very next paragraph, the following averment appears:

“I am the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner – II in the petitioner and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case”

8. The conduct of the Regi