* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2009 W I T H FIRST APPEAL NO. 1479 OF 2009 CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd, Nagar Road, Pune .........Appellant V/S. ESI Corporation, ........Respondent ----- Mr. A.P. Patwardhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.M. Palshikar, Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 15th April, 2010. P.C. :- 1. These two appeals arise out of an identical order dated 31st July 2009 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court holding that conveyance reimbursement agreed to be paid by the appellant in view of the settlement between the company and the employees in the year 1999 forms part of wages of the employees. The appeal is opposed by the respondent. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the short question of law arising therein, the appeals are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission by dispensing with the paper-book and production of records and proceedings. 3. By the agreement arrived at between the appellant and its employees * 2 * on 28th August, 1999 it was agreed that conveyance reimbursement will be paid at the rate of Rs.1165-00 for every month, prorate for the days/duration for which the workman is physically present and performs his/her contractual obligations. Pursuant to the settlement, the employees of the appellant started receiving conveyance reimbursement at the rate of Rs.1165/- per month. The appellant, however, was not treating the reimbursement of conveyance as part of wages for the purpose of payment of contribution towards the employees insurance under the Employees State Insurance Act. The Insurance Inspector who visited the appellant company discovered this. He also found that the conveyance reimbursement was considered as wages in respect of the officers employed by the company to show that the wages exceeded the ESI limits but the conveyance reimbursement was not considered as wages for the employees covered under the ESI Act. 4. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that, though the conveyance reimbursement is part of the settlement which otherwise would be covered by the definition of wages under Section 2(22) of E.S.I. Act, considering the fact that it is not a fixed payment but is dependent upon the attendance of the employee and also the input of work by him, it cannot be treated to be as part of wages. According to him, the sum payable towards conveyance reimbursement would vary from time to time depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the question whether the conveyance reimbursement is covered by the definition of Section 2(22) would be a substantial question of law arising for * 3 * consideration of the court and since the question is of general public importance directly and substantially affecting the rights of the parties, the same requires consideration. 5. I have heard the respective counsels for both the sides. Perused the definition of wages under Section 2(22) of ESI Act. The definition makes it very clear that any payment made to a worker as part of settlement, the same would be covered by the definition of wages. It is an amount which would be available to the employees though its payment would, as per the agreement vary per person. It is also seen that as per the settlement the payment of reimbursement of conveyance allowance is not dependent upon the will or desire of the appellant, but, it is by way of fulfillment of the contract. In that circumstance, the amount cannot be separated from wages. In any case, the appellants themselves are treating it as part of wages for one set of employees to get out of the bounds of Employees State Insurance Act. They cannot be allowed to take a different stand as regards the other set of employees. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the court, hence, the appeals are dismissed in limine. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]