- (1.) The judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Ambala dated 10.4.1987 is impugned before this court in the present appeal. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-M/s Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Pinjore (hereinafter described as 'establishment'), is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). It filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act for quashing orders dated 25.2.1984 and 16.5.1985 (Annexures P2 and P3 respectively), whereby the claim for refund of the contribution which, according to the establishment, had been excess paid, was rejected. The learned court below having accepted the petition, the Corporation is before this court.
(2.) At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that following two substantial questions of law would arise for determination by this court in the present appeal: (1) Whether contribution made in respect of certain employees, because of subsequent settlement getting wages exceeding the wage limit would alter their past status of an employee under Section 2(9) of the Act? (2) Whether contribution paid for the contribution period, which commenced prior to a wage settlement with retrospective effect can be said to have been earlier made under an erroneous belief and falling within the ambit of Regulation 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for short, "the Regulations")?
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned court below directing for refund of the amount which, according to the establishment, had been excess paid is totally erroneous and suffers from patent illegality. Section 2(9) of the Act defines the term "employee". Proviso thereto specifically provides that in case the wages of any employee covered under the Act exceeds at any time after the beginning of the contribution period, he shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period. Regulation 4 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for short, "the Regulations"), as applicable at the relevant time, provided for different contribution and benefit periods for different sets of employees. Regulation 5 of the Regulations provides for allocation of contribution and benefit periods to various employees. He submitted that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the period for which the contributions were paid by the establishment, the employees were covered under the Act. It was only on account of wage revision in terms of agreement executed on 1.12.1983 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1983 that some of the employees crossed the wage limit, which had taken them out of the definition of employee for being covered under the Act, otherwise on the date when the contribution was made, they were very well eligible. On account of the aforesaid retrospective wage revision, refund of the contribution already paid was sought for three different contribution periods, namely, June, 1983 to November, 1983; August, 1983 to January, 1984 and October, 1983 to March, 1984.;