TAJ MALABAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR; RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C. 83/05. The short point that arises for determination here is whether the conveyance allowance has to be considered for the purpose of contribution under the E.S.I. Act. I had an opportunity to consider this matter exhaustively in a decision rendered by me in Ins. Appeal 40/07 between the E.S.I. Corporation and M/s Tony Harris Sea Foods Ltd. In the said decision I had considered the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in and a later decision of the same Court in on one side which supports the establishment. Then I considered the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Rajashree Cement v. Dy. Director, 2004 LabIC 2244. After discussing the two different trend of decisions I preferred to accept the view rendered by the Karnataka High Court. The underlying principle was that when conveyance allowance is given as a package irrespective of the question of real transportation, then I took the view that it amounts to a package of the pay back and therefore I distinguished the words conveyance allowance and travelling allowance. Or in other words it has been held that when a person residing very close to the establishment who does not require a conveyance facility is also granted conveyance allowance just to avoid inequality among the working class, I took the stand that such allowances has to be taken as part and parcel of the pay package which can be extended to the purpose of calculating the E.S.I. Contribution. Learned Counsel for the appellant again wanted to consider this question in the back drop that the E.S.I. Corporation has itself has taken a stand earlier and by way of a circular had introduced it again. But the decision rendered by me was not on the basis of any addition or concession but on the principles laid down in the decisions and therefore I hold the view that conveyance allowance forms part and parcel of the wages and it shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the E.S.I contribution.

(2.) Therefore the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed.