Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THE Employees State Insurance Corporation (herein after referred to as the Corporation claimed the sum of Rs. 11,567.84 Paisa from Messrs Mohan Spinning Mill Rohtak (hereinafter called the Mill), on account of Employer's contribution under the Employees' State insurance Act. 1948 (hereinafter called the ACT), in respect of the following amounts considering them to be wages or part of the wages of the workman : - - 1. Stipends paid to learners ; 2.REWARD paid to the employees ; Amount paid to persons for the repairs and maintenance of the building etc., and 3. AMOUNTS paid to various persons for loading and unloading of goods. Shri Onkar Nath Gupta, principal employer of the Mill filed an application under section 75 of the Act, alleging that the Mill was not liable to pay the amount claimed by the Corporation as it did not relate to wages of the workers. The application was contested by the Corporation and the following issues were framed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Rohtak : - - 1. Whether the employees in question are learners ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the learners fall in the definition of employees under the Act ? 3. Whether the amount paid to the employees in question is reward ? 4. Whether any expenses have been incurred under the head Repairs and Maintenance etc. as mentioned in paragraph 4.C ? 5.RELIEF . It is mentioned in the judgment of the employees' Insurance Court that the first issue should have been : Whether the learners in questions are employees ?
(2.) The learned Insurance Court decided all the issues in favour of the employer and held that the Corporation was not entitled is the amount claimed (sic) the Corporation was decreased not to make any recovery from he Mill by order dated February 11 1971. Against that order F.A.O. No. (sic) of 1971 was filed in this Court by the Corporation which was dismissed by a learned Single judge on December 21, 1971, and the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters (sic) directed (sic) that order.
(3.) The Learned Counsel for the appellant has not pressed the claim for contribution in (sic) paid to the (sic) and accepted the (sic) at they were not employees and no Employer's contribution was payable in respect of the amounts paid to then as stipends. No (sic) on (sic) therefore, necessary to be made in this judgment. With regard to the amount of reward, it has been stated by the Learned Counsel (sic) in ids report (Exhibit R.W. 2/6) (sic) had mentioned that a sum of (sic) paid the employees as overtime wages, (sic) good work bone by employees, but the account had been given the name of 'Reward' by the employer and the various amounts were found booked in the ledger under that head No other evidence was brought on the record by the Corporation to prove that the payments were, in fact, not by way of reward but by way of overtime wages or wages for the extra work etc. It was stated at the bar by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that there were about 700 employees of the Mill and it is surprising that not one of them was examined as a witness to state whether the payments made to the employees by way of reward were actually as such or were wages paid for overtime work of extra work done by them. The Learned Counsel then submits that the payments shown in this account did not amount to remuneration paid or payable in cash loan employee in terms of his contract of employment, but that this amount is included in "other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months" as mentioned, in section 2(22) of the Act. No evidence was brought on the record that the amounts shown as paid to the employees by way of reward were additional remuneration paid at intervals not exceeding two months. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that the Corporation never challenged that some other amounts were paid under the 'Reward' and, therefore, the plea put forth at the hearing of the appeal could not be allowed to be taken by the Corporation. In paragraph 4(b) of the application, the Mill had stated as under : - - As the 'Reward' paid to the employees of the said Mill is not 'Wages', as the term is defined in the said Act, therefore, employees ; contribution in respect of such reward is not payable under the said Act by the Applicant.;