VIJAYAWADA BOTTLLING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. EMPLOYEE INSURANCE COURT AND CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL I HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed this appeal against the Order dated 19.11.1998, passed in E.I. Case No.42 of 1997 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad, wherein the learned Chairman dismissed the application, which was filed under Section 75(l)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (for brevity the Act) praying to set aside the demand notice dated 9-6-1997.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. It has entrusted with the work of manufacturing of soft drinks and aerated water i.e., Thums up, Gold Spot etc., and accordingly, it engaged 120 workmen including casual and piece rate employees for the said purpose. It is submitted that for each shift the petitioner is able to produce 3,000 crates, as against the installed capacity of 6,000 crates. To encourage more production, the petitioner has introduced the payment known as 'Inam', which will be paid to the workers whenever production exceeds 3,000/- crates per shift. It is stated that the said Inam is not a wage as defined under Section 2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short "the Act"). It is further submitted that if the said Inam was added to the wage payable to the workers, most of the workers would not come under the purview of the Act. Hence, according to the petitioner it is not liable to pay any contribution on the said payment of Inam. Therefore, he made a representation dated 19-4-1997, requesting the respondent authorities to provide an opportunity of personal hearing. However, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent authorities passed the order dated 9-6-1997, demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 1,65,184.00 towards ESI contribution on the omitted wages for the period from July, 199 5/09/1996. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal.

(3.) The Court below, on considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by both the parties, dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner failed to pay contribution on omitted wages even though it has brought to its notice during inspection.