L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals are filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act ). All of them are in relation to the same Industrial undertaking. While the Employees State Insurance corporation figures as appellant in C. M. A. Nos. 2960 of 2000 and 35 of 2002, the industry figures as appellant in C. M. A. No. 25 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the employees State Insurance Corporation is referred to as the appellant and the industry is referred to as the respondent.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts may briefly be stated as under: the respondent is an industry undertaking manufacture of various electrical equipments. It is covered by the provisions of the Act. The appellant caused an inspection of the records of the respondent, in the context of making the contribution payable under the Act, and they noticed that contributions payable for the various workers involved in building repairs, were not made. Similarly, no contribution was made on the amount of salary paid as incentive to the employees of the respondent. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 11. 1. 1988 was issued calling upon the respondent to show-cause as to why the amounts indicated therein shall not be recovered. The explanation submitted by the respondent did not appeal to the appellant and a final order was passed. Challenging the same, the respondent filed O. P. No. 199 of 1988 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam.

( 3 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 6. 3. 2000, the trial Court held that the respondent is not under obligation to make any contribution in relation to the workers engaged in building repairs. However, it held that the respondent is liable to pay the contribution under the Act on the amount paid as incentive to its employees. The appellant filed C. M. A. No. 35 of 2002, aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court insofar as it set-aside the order demanding the payment of contribution for the workers engaged in building repairs. The respondent, in rum, filed c. M. A. No. 25 of 2001 assailing the order of the Trial Court making it liable to make contribution on the incentives paid to the employees.

( 4 ) IN relation to the period from 1988 to 1990, the appellant noticed that the contribution for the workers engaged in the building repairs was not paid. Proceedings ensued and they too were challenged by the respondent by filing O. P. No. 49 of 1992 before the same Court. Through its judgment dated 10. 7. 2000, the Trial Court absolved the respondent, of its liability to pay the contribution. The same is challenged by the appellant by filing C. M. A. No. 2960 of 2000.

( 5 ) SRI B. G. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing Counsel for the appellant, submits that the building repairs in the respondent- factory were carried out for a very long time and the workers engaged in it are covered by the provisions of the Act. He submits that even if the work was done through a contract, the owner is under obligation to make the contribution in respect of the employees engaged in that work, as long as it related to the premises of such owner. He attempts to sustain the finding of the Trial Court to the effect that contribution is liable to be made for the incentives extended to the employees of the respondent. He submits that the definition of wages under sub-section (22) of Section 2 of the Act is too wide and covers the incentives, which are treated as additional pay.

( 6 ) SRI B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the Trial Court discussed the matter in relation to the workers engaged in building repairs from the proper perspective and that no interference is called for. He submits that the Trial Court maintained a clear distinction between contract for work and contract of work and it a ccords with the settled principles of law. As regards the fastening of lability for the incentives, learned Counsel submits that even assuming that they do not fit in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document