REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. TALEMA ELECTRONIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree dated 01.08.2017 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.3 of 2007 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) The Employee State Insurance Corporation is the appellant. The substantial question of law raised in the appeal on hand reads as under: 1. Whether the ESI Court is correct in disallowing the claim of conveyance which is part and parcel of wages paid by the Management to their employees in terms of contract of employment/under Settlement arrived at s per sec. 18(1) of I.D.Act as held in Rajashree Cement and others vs. Deputy Director (I), Bangalore and others. 2. Whether the ESI Court erred in deciding that conveyance allowance would not amount to wages under sec.2 (22) of the ESI Act based upon the judgment in 2004 LLR 621 (Regional Director, ESI Corporation vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd, Moppet Division, Madras when the Supreme Court had categorically held in Wellman (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs. ESI Corporation reported in 1994(1) SCC 219 that the remuneration which becomes payable on fulfillment of terms of contract of employment is covered under the first part of the definition of wages under Sec.2(22) of the Act.

(3.) Whether the ESI Court has to follow the judgment rendered based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court or the judgment rendered without rendered without any reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Wellman (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ESI Corporation (1994 (1) SCC 219 and Modella Wollens Ltd Vs. ESI Corporation (1994 (Suppl)(3) SCC 580 and another? 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a submission that the interpretation as well as the spirit of Section 2(22) of the ESI Act requires to be interpreted in the present appeal with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Two different judgments are made available with reference to traveling allowance and conveyance allowance as contemplated under Section 2(22) of the ESI Act. In this context, the facts are to be considered. The fact remains that the respondent/Company entered into 18(1) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act and the said settlement was signed between the Management of the first respondent and its workmen. As per the settlement, Clause (5) contemplates the following salary structure to workman which is extracted hereunder: 5.It was mutually agreed to revise the Salary Structure of workmen during the negotiation as follows Yearly increment will be included only in the basic salary.