REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation challenging the order passed by the E.I. Court, Kollam, in I.C. No. 52 of 1992 dated 17.1.1995.

(2.) The respondent is a covered establishment under the ESI Act. In this appeal, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether overtime allowance paid to the workers, omitted wages and the amount paid towards canteen allowances are wages within the meaning of the ESI Act

(3.) The Court below found that as per Ext. B1 inspection report no details of the amount regarding omitted wages is given. DW1 was examined in this case to prove Ext. B1 report. Though he has verified the register he has not recorded any details of this item and he has not taken any extract of the record verified by him. In such circumstances, the court below found that it is not known as to how this amount was arrived at and what are the items for which the amount was spent. According to the respondent, they have paid contribution on wages admittedly payable by them. Hence the question arises for consideration is as to whether what is claimed to be omitted wages really partake the character of wages, for which details should be furnished as to how this amount is spent and under what head without which it cannot be determined as to whether it represent wages at all. In the absence of any answer on this question, the claim of the Corporation cannot be found sustainable. I cannot take a different view in this matter in the absence of any evidence and the finding is only to be confirmed.