JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Employees’ State Insurance Court, Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) in Application (E.S.I.) No. 4/1991, the appellant Company, who is the original applicant in the aforesaid Application, has preferred this appeal challenging rejection of it’s application.

2. The background facts are as under :

The appellant Company is covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, “the ESI Act”). Non applicant No.2, on the basis of inspection dated 06.12.1989, issued one letter dated 31.01.1991 to the appellant Company claiming an amount of Rs. 11,584/- towards contribution on the amount of conveyance shown by the appellant for the period from July 19856 to September 1990. The appellant Company had replied the same vide its reply dated 25.02.1991 and contended that it was not liable to pay such contribution since the conveyance allowance was exempted from the definition of ‘wages’ under Section 2 (22) (b) of the ESI Act. The appellant also claimed opportunity of being heard. However, again on 15.04.1991, the respondents issued one more notice to deposit the aforesaid amount within 15 days, failing which 12% interest per annum would be accrued upon it. As such, the appellant Company was constrained to file the aforesaid application.

3. The respondents resisted the claim before learned trial Court and thereafter the learned trial Court on the basis of material produced before it, rejected the prayer of the appellant Company that the respondents were not entitled to recover the aforesaid amount under show-cause notice dated 15.04.1991. Hence, this appeal

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Company during his argument submitted that the appellant Company has challenged the impugned judgment and order mainly on two grounds viz; (1) that the Corporation did not give any opportunity to the appellant Company of personal hearing and (2) that the conveyance allowance against which the respondents had sought contribution is not part of wages. According to him, the Corporation did not give any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant Company. He also pointed out that the learned trial Court has definitely erred in holding that conveyance allowance was part of wages since it was different from travelling allowance as contemplated in the E.S.I. Act. In support of his submission, he relied on the following judgments.

(i) Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/s Texmo Industries [Special Leave Petition (C.) No.811/2021).

(ii) Talema Electronic India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Regional Director, ESI Corporation and anr, Civil Appeal No.3175 of 2022

(iii) Rajrani Exports Ltd. vs Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & ors, 2002 (1) L.L.N. 236

(iv) Garage Kamat vs Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Court, Bombay & anr, 1998 (3) L.L.N. 665.

5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondents Corporation strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant Company. He claimed that the Inspection Report on record had clearly indicated as to how the said conveyance allowance was part of wages, which the appellant Company, to avoid the contribution, showed it separately than the wages.

6. Heard rival submissions. Perused the entire impugned judgment and order alongwith record and proceeding of the original application. Also considered the judgments relied by learned Counsel for the appellant Company in the light of rival submissions.

7. It is significant to note that the learned trial Court has refused the contention of the appellant Company that personal hearing was required to be given before claiming contribution amount of Rs. 11,584/- towards conveyance allowance in absence of any provision. The trial Court has also disallowed the claim of appellant Company that the conveyance allowance was excluded from the wages as per the provisions of the ESI