Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Maria Clete, J.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Thaishola Estate – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 10027, 10028, 10032, 10035, 10036, 10056, 10057, 10058 & 10060, 10296, 10703, 10706, 10708, 10720, 10722, 10723 of 2020 along with W.M.P.Nos.12189, 13006, 13018 of 2020
Decided On : 07-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
MINIMUM WAGES ACT: S.2(h)
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenged the Tribunal's orders allowing tea estates and other entities to exclude terrain allowance from the calculation of basic wages for EPF contributions, asserting it should be included under Section 2(b) of the EPF Act. (Paras 3-6)
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petitions on the grounds of inordinate delay ranging from 6 to 11 years without sufficient justification, highlighting that the EPF Department's reliance on outdated precedents was unjustifiable. (Paras 16-24)
Issues: Whether the terrain allowance falls within the definition of basic wage under Section 2(b) of the EPF Act and whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the delay in filing. (Paras 3, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that allowances must be uniformly paid to all employees to be considered as basic wages; thus, it concluded that the terrain allowance was not included in basic wages due to non-uniformity and the lack of adherence to statutory definitions. (Paras 25-32)
Result: All writ petitions dismissed.
For the Petitioner:M/s.R.Meenakshi, V.Mohanapriya, M.Suganya and A.Nambirajan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr.P.Thangaraj, R.Monoharan, Advocates
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions regarding epf act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. delay in filing writ petitions. (Para 5) |
| 3. questions of maintainability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. consideration of delays in legal proceedings. (Para 9) |
| 5. clarification of maintainability in court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. defining basic wages under epf legislation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. nature of basic wage. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 8. dismissal of all writ petitions. (Para 34) |
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.
| Sl.No. | Writ Petition No. | Date of Tribunal's order | Delay in filing Writ Petition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | W.P.No. 10296/2020 | 24.11.2014 | 6 years |
| 2 | W.P.No. 10703/2020 | 17.06.2014 | 6 years |
| 3 | W.P.No. 10706/2020 | 19.08.2014 | 6 years |
| 4 | W.P.No. 10708/2020 | 09.04.2012 | 8 years |
| 5 | W.P.No. 10720/2020 | 17.6.2014 | 6 years |
| 6 | W.P.No. 10722/2020 | 21.7.2009 | 11 years |
| 7 | W.P.No. 10723/2020 | 03.11.2014 | 6 years |
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
