(This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) by respondent No.1, the Deputy Director, ESI Corporation in E.I. Case No.41 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad.)

2. Respondent No.1 herein, Amrutanjan Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed the said E.I. Case No.41 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience) praying for refund of an amount of Rs.33,178/- paid by the said Amrutanjan Limited under protest and also Rs.11,301/- paid by the said company erroneously towards conveyance and washing allowances. The Tribunal, after referring to the respective stands taken by the parties, having settled the issues, recorded evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1, R.W.2, marked Exs.P-1 to P-16, R-1 to R-6 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the first respondent Amrutanjan Limited is entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly allowed the E.I. Case No.41 of 2001. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal had been filed under Section 82 of the Act as aforesaid.

3. Contentions of Sri William Burra: Sri William Burra, learned counsel representing appellant had taken this Court through the grounds raised in the civil miscellaneous appeal and also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2 (22) of the Act and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the Tribunal totally erred in allowing the E.I. Case No.41 of 2001. The learned counsel, in all fairness, would submit that specifically no substantial question of law as such had been formulated or raised in the grounds of civil miscellaneous appeal, but however, in view of the fact that the civil miscellaneous appeal was admitted on 01.3.2005, the same to be heard on the merits on the under noted substantial question of law.

"Whether conveyance allowance and washing allowance would fall within the expression "wages" defined in Section 2 (22) of the Act?

The learned counsel also while further elaborating his submissions had pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal and further pointed out to the relevant portions of the E.S.I. Scheme of India-Employers' Guide and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Regulation 40 of the Regulations and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the order made under Section 45 A of the Act had attained finality and since the demand for refund was not made within time as ordained by the Regulations, the Tribunal totally erred in allowing the E.I. Case No.41 of 2001. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal was unable to appreciate the fact that 40 employees in respect of whom Amrutanjan Limited did not pay contribution also would fall under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The counsel also would maintain that the order of the Tribunal below holding that the conveyance allowance and washing allowance or "wages" being erroneous the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The counsel also would maintain that when once the conveyance and washing allowances do not fall within the expression "wages" all the employees would come within the purview of the Act. The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the oral evidence and further pointed out to certain documents which had been marked and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the order under challenge being unsustainable the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. Per contra, Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned counsel representing first