JUDGMENT : C.S. Sudha, J. This intra court appeal filed by the first respondent in W.P. (C)No.27110/2013 challenges the judgment dated 16/10/2017 allowing the writ petition. The respondents herein are the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 respectively in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a bank constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The first respondent was employed on commission basis by the petitioner bank as 'Nithya Nidhi Deposit' agent for the purpose of mobilising deposits under the 'Nithya Nidhi Deposit Scheme'. The first respondent worked for the petitioner bank as per the agreements/contracts entered into from time to time for a period of about 30 years from 01/02/1979 to 24/03/2009. The first respondent was drawing a commission of Rs.8,000/-when he left the services of the petitioner bank. Pursuant there to, he preferred a claim for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Gratuity Act). The controlling authority as per Ext.P1 order dated 14/11/2012 taking note of the long years of service rendered by the first respondent and relying on the dictum in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank, (2001)3 SCC 36 , found employer-employee relationship between the parties and held that he was in fact an employee for the purpose of payment of gratuity. An amount of Rs.1,38,462/-was thus determined as the gratuity payable to the first respondent with interest @10% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. An appeal preferred by the petitioner bank before the appellate authority, resulted in Ext.P5 order dated 02/09/2013 by which Ext.P1 order was affirmed. Hence, the writ petition challenging Ext.P1 and Ext.P5 orders. 3. The learned Single Judge disagreed with the findings in Exts.P1 and P5 orders and so quashed the same. Aggrieved, the first respondent has come up in appeal. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the former is not an employee under the Gratuity Act. In the dictum in Indian Banks Association (Supra), it has been held that deposit agents like the first respondent are workmen coming under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act). In the dictum in Indian Banks Association (Supra), it has been held that deposit agents like the first respondent are workmen coming under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act). The first respondent was working under agreements executed with the petitioner Bank and was receiving remuneration for performance of his works in the form of commission. Commission, which was determined from time to time, is nothing but emoluments earned by him in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. As it was emolument, the same cannot be treated as commission which is usually paid in addition to the emoluments to an employee. The commission paid to him was nothing but remuneration as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act. Reference was also made to a Single Bench decision of this Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2013(1) KHC 739 . Per contra it was submitted by the petitioner Bank that the definition of 'employee' and 'wages' as contemplated under the aforesaid statutes differ and hence the definitions contained thereunder cannot be relied on to hold that 'commission' also would come within the definition of 'wages' so as to entitle the petitioner to the payment of gratuity. 5. Per contra it was submitted by the petitioner Bank that the definition of 'employee' and 'wages' as contemplated under the aforesaid statutes differ and hence the definitions contained thereunder cannot be relied on to hold that 'commission' also would come within the definition of 'wages' so as to entitle the petitioner to the payment of gratuity. 5. Section 2(s) of the ID Act reads “"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person - (I) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.” Section 2(rr) reads - “(rr) "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes - (i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to; (ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of foodgrains or other articles; (iii) any travelling concession; (iv) any commission payable on the promotion of sales or business or both. but does not include- (a) any bonus; (b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman under any law for the time being in force; (c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service;” (Emphasis supplied) Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act reads - “(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment, to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.” Section 2(s) reads - “(s) "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 2(rr) of the ID Act includes 'commission' within the definition of wages, whereas Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act does not include 'commission' within the definition of 'wages'. Therefore the Sections under the ID Act cannot be of any help to the first respondent. 6. The first respondent also relies on the dictum in South Malabar Gramin Bank (Supra). In the impugned judgment it has been held that the said dictum is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same was rendered in the context of definition of 'employee' and 'wages' as contemplated under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the EPF Act). The short question that was considered in the aforesaid decision was, whether 'Nithya Nidhi Deposit Collectors' of the South Malabar Gramin Bank were 'employees' to whom the provisions of the EPF Act would apply. In the order passed by the authority concerned under Section 7A of the EPF Act, it was held that such deposit collectors are employees to whom the Act would apply. In the order passed by the authority concerned under Section 7A of the EPF Act, it was held that such deposit collectors are employees to whom the Act would apply. The same was affirmed in appeal by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act. The orders were impugned by the the bank contending that the deposit collectors are not 'employees' under the Act. It was the case of the Bank that no contribution is liable to be paid in respect of deposit collectors as per the Scheme framed under the EPF Act. As per section 2(f) of the EPF Act an “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person, -(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961) or under the standing orders of the establishment. Section 2 (b) of the EPF Act defines 'basic wages' to 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 and which are paid or payable in cash to him, but does not include -(i) the cash value of any food concession; (ii) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), house-rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment; (iii) any presents made by the employer. This court then took notice of the terms of the agreement of agency entered into between the bank and the deposit collectors which contained several terms and conditions. As per Clause 15 of the said agreement the bank subject to the Rules for the time being in force was to pay to the Agent commission at the rate/rates determined by the Board of Directors of the Bank from time to time. As per Clause 15 of the said agreement the bank subject to the Rules for the time being in force was to pay to the Agent commission at the rate/rates determined by the Board of Directors of the Bank from time to time. It was also agreed that the Agent would not be entitled to or claim any other amount either by way of commission, remuneration, honorarium allowances, benefits of any type or on any other reasons whatsoever. Taking note of Clause 15 of the agreement it was held that the deposit collectors were entitled to 'commission' at the rates determined by the bank from time to time and that such 'commission' would definitely form part of the emoluments earned by them in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and hence liable to be reckoned as 'basic wages'. 7. Coming back to the case on hand, a copy of the agreement dated 08/03/1979 entered into between the petitioner Bank and the first respondent was handed over to us during the course of the arguments. Clause 15 of the agreement reads - “15. The Bank, shall subject to the Rules for the time being in force pay to the Agent Commission at the rate/rates determined by the Board from time to time. The Agent shall not be entitled to or claim any other amount either by way of commission, remuneration, honorarium allowances of any type or on any other account whatsoever” (Emphasis supplied). Clause 15 of the agreement in South Malabar Gramin Bank (Supra) and the provisions of the EPF Act are similar to Clause 15 of the agreement in the case on hand. Section 2(b) of the EPF Act and Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act are also identical as far as 'commission' is concerned. We are Writ Appeal No.2492 of 2017 therefore in respectful agreement with the dictum in South Malabar Gramin Bank (Supra), which has been continued in appeal also. (The South Malabar Gramin Bank v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2019(2) KHC 126). In the said circumstance, the impugned judgment requires to be interfered with and hence we do so. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Exts.P1 and P5 orders shall stand restored. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.