A. SUBBULAKSHMI, J.

This appeal is filed against the order, dated April 22, 1992 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P No. 37 of 1988.

The petitioner/appellant filed a petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for a declaration that the ex gratia payment made by the petitioner were not wages and the order passed by the respondent, dated August 12, 1988, is null and void. The petitioner, employer is a proprietor of a mill, carrying on Business in manufacturing cotton yarn. The mill is already covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and they are paying the contributions regularly. They are maintaining relevant records as stipulated under the Act. The Corporation issued show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to pay contribution on certain alleged omitted wages for the period 1985 to 1987, a sum of Rs. 3, 49, 078.21.

The respondent contended that only after due enquiry and considering the materials available and objections, an order was passed, determining the contribution. Against that order, the petitioner had filed OP No. 37 of 1988 in the District Court, Madurai, and the District Court, Madurai, passed an order allowing the petition in part and modified the order of the respondent-Corporation, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the contribution of Rs. 1, 40, 594. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner/appellant filed this appeal.

In the District Court, the appellant/petitioner succeeded only in respect of terms (3) and (4). Rest of the items are challenged in this appeal. Item (1) relates to the difference in wages. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he has not produced any materials in respect of this item and he is not challenging the order of the trial Court in respect of this item. So, in respect of this item, the order of the lower Court is confirmedIn respect of item (2), which relates to interim relief paid to the workers amounting to Rs. 6, 86, 746.91. During 1985, there was dispute between the management and the workers for enhancement of wages. The Government referred the dispute to the Special Industrial Tribunal and the petitioner-mill is also a party in that. While so, the dispute is pending before the Tribunal, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued two G.Os., under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act Exhibits P2 and P3, and the management was directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 500 and Rs. 75 monthly to the permanent and badli workers and the management was also directed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 260 and 65 per month to other than permanent and badli workers, i.e. temporary workers. Accordingly, the petitioner-mill paid interim relief from July 1985 to June 1987. The lower Court has found that it is seen from Exhibit P4 that a settlement has been entered into by the management as well as the representatives of the union to treat the interim relief amount as ex gratia and they should be written off. Only in pursuance of the settlement, the Special Industrial Tribunal gave their seal of approval and passed an award accordingly and the Court suo motu did not pass any award to treat the interim relief amount as ex gratia one and so, the interim relief payments made to the workers are also wages as defined under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the interim relief amount paid to the workers are not wages and it is only ex gratia amount and so there is no need to pay the contribution. He relied on the decisions of this Court reported in Gnanambigai Mills Ltd., Coimbatore v. Director General E.S.I. Corporation, New Delhi & Anr. 1996-II-LLJ-149 (Mad) and in Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd., v. Regional Director (Tamil Nadu) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras 1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-1236 (Mad). In both decisions cited, this Court has held that the interim relief paid to employees pursuant to Government order under Sect