These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 28-52003 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in ESI Application No. 22 of 2002 where under the application filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 by the employer challenging the order dated 25-3-1999 passed by Competent Authority under Section 45-A of the ESI Act has been allowed in part.

2. M.F.A. No. 4623 of 2003 is by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation" for the sake of brevity) questioning the correctness and legality of the above referred order dated 28-5-2003 where under order passed by the Competent Authority under the ESI Act in exercise of powers under Section 45-A dated 25-3-1999 has been partially modified by substituting the quantum of Wages to be taken into account for purposes of computation of Employees contribution.

3. M.F.A. No. 6677 of 2003 is by M/s. New Forge Company (hereinafter referred to as "employer" for the sake of brevity) questioning the correctness and legality of the above said order dated 28-5-2003 where under the employer's claim to set aside the order dated 25-3-1999 passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act by the Competent Authority has been rejected and said order has been upheld.

4. Facts in brief are that employer is a partnership concern engaged in the manufacture and sale of gears and gear units. Provisions of ESI Act was extended to the employer with effect from 1-7-1997 and since then contributions are being paid in accordance with law. For the period July 1997 to September 1998 employer is said to have failed to pay the contributions in accordance with Sections 39 and 40(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 at the rates prescribed under Rule 51 of Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 and in the manner prescribed under Regulation 29 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 within the time-limit prescribed under Regulation 31 and as such a show-cause notice was issued on 11-2-1999 and a personal hearing was also offered to the employer by fixing the date of personal hearing as 26-2-1999 at 2 p.m. The said notice was duly served on the employer and no reply was filed. AE such Competent Authority passed an order under Section 45-A of the Act on 25-3-1999 holding that contribution amounting to Rs. 38,443/- is payable by Employer as the principal employer(s) and directed them to pay the same within a period of 15 days from the date of order along with interest at 15% per annum. It was also notified failure to remit the amount would result in recovery of the same through the Recovery Officer. Since the amount was not remitted recovery certificate came to be issued on 28-5-1999.

4.1 The employer filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act in ESI Application No. 22 of 2002 before the Employees' State Insurance Court and Additional Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore praying for setting aside the order dated 25-3-1999 passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act by the Competent Authority. The said application came to be resisted by filing statement of objection by the Corporation. The Insurance Court on considering the rival contentions framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the applicant proves that impugned order passed by respondent determining the contribution on the assumed wages is bad in law?

(ii) If so, what relief the applicant is entitled?

(iii) What order?

4.2 The employer in support of its claim examined one of the partners of the firm as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 14. On behalf of the Corporation Inspector was examined as RW. 1 and got marked Exs. R. 1 to R 6. The ESI Court on considering the contentions and evidence on record by its order dated 28-5-2003 allowed the application in part and it is this order which is assailed by both the Corporation as well as the Employer in these two appeals.

5. Heard Smt. Geetha Devi Papanna, learned Counsel appearing for the appel