Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The petitioner company and its Managing Director filed this writ petition as far back as on August 23, 1994 challenging inter alia notice of demand for recovery of contribution under Section 45-C to Section 45-I of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (as amended) dated June 29, 1994 along with certificate case dated July 11, 1994. The amount so fixed under the certificate in the form of notice of demand to defaulter dated July 11, 1994 is Rs. 2,27,972/-. The outcome of such notice and certificate is that the petitioner company is liable to pay proportionate contribution of the Employees' State Insurance on overtime allowance.
(2.) The petitioners' case is that 'overtime allowance' cannot be said to be 'wages' under Section 2 (22) of the Employees' State, Insurance Act, 1948. If at all the 'overtime' allowance' is construed as 'wages' no retrospective effect can be given in recovering such contribution.
(3.) Therefore the following questions are formulated for due considerations: (a) Can 'overtime allowance' be called as 'wages' within the meaning of Section 2 (22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948? (b) Is the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors. v. E.S.I. Corporation and Ors., has prospective effect?;