The main legal point established in the judgment is that third party agents could not be treated as employees and amounts paid to them would not fall under the definition of ''wages'' under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 83 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act to set aside the judgment and decree of the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai dated 22.06.2015 in EIOP.No.198 of 2001 in so far as remanding the same back to the 1st respondent for fresh adjudication and to allow the appeal.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2015 in E.I.O.P.No.198 of 2001 on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court(Principal Labour Court), Chennai.

2. Brief facts which should be necessary for deciding the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:

The Regional Office, Tamil Nadu Employees State Insurance Corporation, determined the amount payable as contribution of the employer and called upon the appellant company to show cause within 15 days as to why such assessment should not be made. The said assessment was opposed by the appellant company on the ground that the claim of contribution of amounts reportedly paid to third parties to boost trade and business was improper and cannot be passed on to the employer. Considering the objections, the Employees State Insurance Corporation in TN/Ins.IV/51- 18200-66 dated 16.11.1998 passed an order U/s. 45-A of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and held that the assessment was proper and that the employer was liable to contribute even for the agents and third parties who were doing work on commission basis. Aggrieved by the said order of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, the appellant filed E.I.O.P.No.198 of 2001 before the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai.

3. The grounds put forth by the appellant were mainly that the Employees State Insurance Act does not contemplate payment made towards service charges and commissions to be treated as wages and consequently the order directing the appellants to pay contribution so far as such third party claims (service charges/commissions) was liable to be set aside.

4. Before the Principal Labour Court, one Mr.S,Chidambaram was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.49 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Mr.V.Ananthsayam was examined as R.W.1 and Mr.R.G,Rajendra Singh was examined as R.W.2 and Exhibits R.1 to R.6 were marked.

5. The Principal Labour Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence before it, came to the conclusion that some of the documents were not produced before the Employees State Insurance Corporation and that if they had been produced, the Corporation would have been placed in a better position to come to a proper conclusion as to whether the amounts paid towards commission and service charges would fall within the definition of wages. On this limited score, the impugned order before the Labour Court in TN/Ins.IV/51-18200-66 dated 16.11.1998 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the respondent/Employees State Insurance Corporation for fresh consideration.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal u/s. 83 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant has raised two substantial question of law:

“1. Is not the ESI Court a Court of Original jurisdiction which is entitled to apprise all the records placed before and come to a definite conclusion on its own.

2. Whether the ESI Court was justified in the facts of the case in remanding the matter back to the ESI Corporation inspite of finding that the agents for whom the claim is made are not employees of the appellant and nothing survives for consideration of ESI Department.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sbi General Insurance Company vs. Employees State Insurance, in W.P.(L) No.7264 of 2020 and the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in the case of The Assistant Director ESI Corporation rep by Deputy Director vs. M/s. Vasu Agarbatthis, 20