P. THANGAVEL, J.

These are all appeals against order dated April 30, 1991, on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court (District Court), Salem, in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 14 of 1987 and 16 of 1989 filed against the order, dated January 29, 1987, in TN/INS/IX/51.5613-11 and order, dated February 17, 1989, in TN/INS./IX/51.5613-11 on the file of the Regional Office (Tamil Nadu) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras 34, respectively.

The petitioner in both the petitions is textile mill engaged in manufacture of yarn, etc., with workmen numbering about 800 which includes permanent and temporary employees, apart from apprentices, badlis, etc. The petitioner mill is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The management of the petitioner's company was remitting both the employees' and employer's contributions regularly in respect of employees, who are all covered under the Act. The respondents issued a notice, dated May 7, 1986, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why assessment should not be made under Section 45-A of the Act and the sum of Rs. 2, 22, 545.64 should not be recovered for the period from July 1982 to December 1984. For effecting such recovery 11 items were shown by the respondents.

Likewise, a similar notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondents for the period from January 1985 to March 1986. In that notice 11 items were shown as liable for payment of ESI contribution and the contribution to be paid for the abovesaid period was shown as Rs. 1, 73, 535.75. The petitioner after receiving the abovesaid notices made representation to the respondents and after considering the representation made by the petitioner, the contribution payable to the respondents for July 1982 to December 1984 and January 1985 to March 1986 were determined as Rs. 1, 61, 637.30 and Rs. 1, 73, 535.75 respectively.Aggrieved at the amounts determined as mentioned above payable to the respondents as ESI contribution, the petitioner has filed petitions before the Employees' State Insurance Court (District Court) Salem (hereinafter referred to as Court). After considering the material evidence placed before it, the said Court has decided that 25 per cent of the amounts shown as spent for building repairs, electrical repairs, machinery repairs and payments made to lay off compensation and wages paid to employees designated as apprentices are liable to be considered for a payment of contribution for the period from July 1982 to December 1984. Likewise, the Special Court has decided 25 per cent of the amount shown towards building repair, machinery repair, generator repair and electrical repair are to be considered for payment of contribution under the Act, apart from the amounts shown as wages paid to employees designated as apprentices and interim relief paid to employees from April 1985 to March 1986. Aggrieved at the common order of the Special Court in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 14 of 1987 and 6 of 1989, dated April 30, 1991, the petitioner as appellant has come forward with these appeals.

Admittedly the petitioner-mill is engaged in manufacture of yarn, etc., and there are 800 workmen including permanent and temporary employees, apprentices, badlis, etc., are working in the said mills. The fact remains that the abovesaid petitioner-mill is covered under the Act and the petitioner is paying contributions both for the employees and employers regularly in respect of the employees covered under the Act. Though amounts were claimed under various heads by the respondent under the Act at the initial stage, now this Court is concerned only with regard to the items relating to payment of amount to apprentices, interim reliefs paid to the employees and amount spent for effecting repairs to building, machineries, electrical equipments including generator.The fact remains that stipend was paid by the petitioner to the persons, who were undergoing training with designation