SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 664

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.D. OJHA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.
Assistant Regional Director, Nagpur, Appellant
Versus
Model Mills Nagpur Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 760-761 of 1975
Decided on 1-11-1990.

The legal fiction created by the Explanation to Section 41 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, cannot be extended to the definition of 'Wages' or the method of computation of the contribution as contemplated by Schedule 1 of the Act.

Headnote:

Wages - Factories Act - Interpretation of the term 'Wages' under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948

Fact of the Case:

The dispute revolved around whether the amount paid to employees for authorized leave under the Factories Act, 1948, should be included in the total wage bill of the employer for computing its share of special contribution under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amount paid towards authorized leave was not to be included in the definition of 'Wages' under the Act, and the legal fiction created by the Explanation to Section 41 could not be extended to the definition of 'Wages' or the method of computation of the contribution as contemplated by Schedule 1 of the Act.

Issues: Interpretation of the term 'Wages' under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and the inclusion of amount paid for authorized leave in the total wage bill of the employer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of Ss. 40 and 41 of the Act, the legal fiction created by the Explanation to Section 41, and the provisions contained in the 1st Schedule.

Final Decision: The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT:— The short question involved in these appeals is as to whether the amount paid to its employees by the employer towards the authorised leave which they enjoy under the provisions of Ss. 79 and 80 of the Factories Act, 1948, is or is not to be included in the total wage bill of the employer for the purposes of computing its share of special contribution under S. 73(a) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute relates to a period prior to the amendment of the definition of the term "Wages" under S 2(22)of the Act by Act No. 44/ 66. There is no dispute that the amount paid towards the authorised leave as aforesaid was not included in the definition of the term "Wages" as it then stood. The submission which was made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court and has been reiterated before us is that even though the definition of the term "Wages" did not include the amount paid towards the authorised leave, it became wages in view of the Explanation to Section 41 of the Act. This submission, however, did not find favour with the High Court. It has been pointed out by the High Court that the purpose of Sections 40 and 41 of the Act was to enable the employer to recover the employees contribution from the employee by reduction from his wages and not otherwise. It has further been pointed out by the High Court that the legal fiction created by the Explanation to Section 41 was for the aforesaid purpose of Sections 40 and 41 and it could not be extended either to the definition of the term "Wages" or to the method of computation of the contribution as contemplated by Schedule 1 of the Act. Reference has also been made by the High Court to Explanation III of Para 2 of Schedule 1 which stated that except as provided by regulations, wages pay, salaries or allowances paid in respect of any period of leave or holidays other than the weekly holidays shall not be taken into account in calculating wages.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court with regard to the interpretation of the definition of the term "Wages" as it then stood as also of Ss. 40 and 41 of the Act and the provisions contained in the 1st Schedule cannot be said to be in any manner erroneous. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court in the judgment under appeal with regard to the interpretation of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and find no merit, in these appeals. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1991 SC 314

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top