[215] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.12.2025 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sector 16, Faridabad …Appellant versus M/s Metlex (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The present appeal is directed against Order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the ESI Court, Gurgaon.

[2] The dispute between the Corporation as well as the assessee involves around the issue:-

‘Whether the overtime allowance being paid by the employer to its employees would be included in the wages and thus, would the employer be required to pay contribution to the Corporation on the same as well?

[3] ESI Court relied upon ratio of law laid down by this Court in ‘Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh versus Onkar Nath Gupta’, 1975 PLR 79 and observe as under:-

“ Under the definition of wages in section 2(22) of the Act, there must be a contract between the parties so as to constitute them employer and employees. Every casual worker for what ever purpose engaged does not become an employee of another. In the case in hand S.K. Puri and RAJNEESH SHARMA Company, Seema Enterprises and M/s Jali Enterprises were engaged for installation of Chilly plot and they were paid for repairs and maintenance of the Chilly plot. There is no evidence that there is intention that both the parties intending to bring about the relationship of employer and employee between them hence, it is not possible to hold that these person who were engaged for repair and maintenance were the employees of the petitioner in respect of whom the contribution is payable under the Act. In this regard the reliance can be placed upon Employees State Insurance Corporation Chandigarh Vs. Onkar Nath Gupta 1975 PLR 79. Further the limit for coverage of employee under the ESI Act was Rs.3000/-. This fact is not denied by the corporation therefore, on wages of over time paid to the work men, the petitioner is not entitled to provide ESI contribution. Over-time work is not done under the contract of service and is not continuity of work therefore, also the petitioner is not liable to pay contribution towards the amount of over time. The respondent failed to give the details How and on which basis this amount has been demanded by the corporation. Hence the demand raised by the respondent vide Ex. Pl is illegal. So far as the amount of repair and maintenance is concerned accordingly it is held that the petitioner is not liable to pay the ESI contribution towards the amount of over time, repair and maintenance as detailed in Ex. Pl. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. ”

[4] Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon ‘Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited etc. versus Employees State Insurance Corporation etc.’, reported as AIR Online 1996 SC 755, to submit that the issue would be covered in favour of the Corporation.

[5] Having heard counsel for the appellant and after carefully perusing the record(s) of the case, this Court finds that the issue is squarely covered by the following observations made by the Supreme Court in ‘Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited etc.’ (supra):-

“ Herein, we have to consider whether overtime wages would be part of the wages. It is settled legal position that the word 'include' would be given wide interpretation so as to bring within its ambit exhaustively all entries akin to or analogous to the main part of wage, except to the extent the enumerated entities except those expressly excluded by the legislation would be within its sweep. In other words, by employing the inclusive definition, the Legislature intended to bring in, by legal fiction, something within the accepted connotation though not strictly included within its ambit. It is seen that the Legislature has expressly excluded items A to D from the purview of the defini