- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the Shalimar Rope Works ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) against a decree passed by the Employees Insurance Court against it and others for a sum of Rs. 3307. 99 p. with interest. The Employees' State insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed an application on March 27,1963 in the said court under section 75 (2) (a) of the employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) stating that the company as the principal employer of the factory came under the purview of the said Act and was under the statutory obligation to insure all employees of its factory and to pay both employer's and the employees' contribution at rates provided in section 39 read with the first schedule of the said Act. The company more or less complied with the provisions of the said Act though after due dates when evasions therefrom were detected. On an inspection of the records of the company carried out by the Inspector of the Corporation it transpired that the company, during the period from september 1, 1955 to December 31, 1961. failed to pay the employees' contribution on over-time wages of Rs. 1,32,316. 10 p. particulars whereof were given in schedule 'a' to the application. The employees' contribution on the said over-time wages at the rate of 21/2% amounted to Rs. 3307. 99 p. which remained due inspite of demands. On the contrary, the company denied its liability therefor on September 17, 1962 when the cause of action of the present proceeding arose. The Corporation in the circumstances filed the application on March 27, 1963 in the Insurance court praying for a decree for the said amount with interest against the company, its Manager and its Managing agents Bangur Brothers Ltd.
(2.) THE company, its Manager and the Managing Agents filed a joint written statement contending, inter alia, that the amount involved in the case was not wages under the Act, but payments made to casual stray coolies for odd jobs and accordingly, no contribution was payable in respect thereof. It was further contended that entries in some eases as over-time wages were made in the books through misconception, mistake or inadvertance, while, in fact, they were not wages. It was also contended that the claim was barred by limitation. An additional written statement was filed by the company wherein it was stated that delivery of the raw materials to the factory site and transport of finished products were done by the Head Office by engaging stray coolies and they were paid by the head Office and not by the factory. Persons so engaged were not connected with manufacturing process of the factory and the figures referred to in schedule 'a' to the petition appeared to have been taken from the Head office Register and not from any record maintained by the factory. The application which was filed, was, in the circumstances, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Employees' Insurance Court, on trial on evidence, held that the application was not barred by limitation as the Indian Limitation Act had no application to the claim in dispute. On merits, the Court found that the record of June, 1958 which was produced showed the relevant entries as payments o. f over-time allowance. The Court also found on evidence that according to the company the payments were made to stray casual coolies through Sarkars, hut there were no vouchers or accounts from Sarkars who, according to O. P. W. 2, accountant of the Head Office, received the amounts for payments to such coolies. The Court also examined the cash Book, Ext. A (3) and was satisfied that the payments were made as overtime wages and not for hiring coolies for the purpose of loading and unloading as contended. As the payments were for wages it was presumed that they were made to the employees of the company which was accordingly liable far the employees' contribution in respect thereof. The application, in 'the circumstances, was allowed and a decree for the amount claimed was passed. The present appeal is by the company and its Manager against the Said decision.;