FAO No. 153 of 1985 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 06,2010. M/S.Moonga Woollen and Spinning Mills,Panipat --Appellant vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.T.P.Singh,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Vikas Suri,Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order of Employees State Insurance Court, Chandigarh, deated 19.9.1984, whereby peition filed under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act,1948 (for short, 'the Act'), for quashing the order passed by the respondent-Corporation on 12.10.1983 for the period from 10/80 to 9/82 amounting to Rs.7278.40 paise plus interest amounting to Rs.911/-, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon an inspection dated 18.9.1981, the respondent demanded contribution amounting to Rs.47.25 paise on the amount spent on the building repairs, Rs.7252.15 on the amount paid to the contractor, Rs. 10718.55 paise on the amount spent on packing charges and Rs. 95.25 paise were claimed on account of short deductions. It was alleged that the amount of Rs.47.25 paise is not payable FAO No. 153 of 1985 2 because the amounts spent on the costs of material. Rs.2835/- were payable on the basis of record from the petitioner on the amount paid to the contractor and the other amount is not subject to contribution. Therefore, Rs.551.25 paise were due on account of packing charges which was also paid. It was also alleged that the amount claimed on account of short deduction has also been. As a matter of fact, it was alleged that the entire amount has been paid but still the Corporation has claimed Rs.7238.40 paise vide notice dated 04.5.1983. A representation was also made by the appellant on 18.8.1983 in this regard. In reply, the Corporation had alleged that the amount in question falls within the definition of wages and thus the contribution is payable on this amount. It is stated that the contribution of Rs.47.25 paise has been claimed on building repairs of Rs. 675/-. Contribution is also claimed on the amount of Rs.10718.55 paise spent on as packing charges. Out of the contribution, Rs.7252.85 paise payable on the amount paid to the contractor a sum of Rs.2835/- has been paid by the petitioner and Rs.551.25 paise has also been paid. The representation made by the appellant was rejected. It was also alleged that that Corporation was left with no other option but to proceed under Section 45-A of the Act. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Wehther the impugned order dated 12.10.1983 claiming contribution amounting to Rs.7278.40 paise and interest Rs.911/- for the period 10/80 to 9/82 is llegal, void and is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPP FAO No. 153 of 1985 3 2. Whether Section 45-A of ESI Act is not applicable to the present case ? OPP 3. Whether written statement has been filed by a competent person? If not it's effect ? OPP 4. Relief: The ESI Court after taking into consideration documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties, decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 together in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Simultaneously, issue No.3. was also decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellant and while deciding issue of Relief, it was held that the petitioner has no right on merits and the same was dismissed with costs. This appeal was admitted on 10.7.1985. The question of law framed was as to “whether a person who employs certain persons on labour, is liable to pay the contributions”. While substantiating the question of law framed, learned counsel for the appellant submits that cost of material is not liable to contribution whereas learned counsel for the respondent submits that even wages paid to the casual labourer is also amenable to contribution in sofar as the Act is concerned. In this regard, learned counsel for the respodent has placed reliance on Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. South India Flour Mill (P) Ltd, AIR 1986 SC 1686. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that no substantial question of law is involved in this FAO No. 153 of 1985 4 appeal which could warrant interference by this Court in the impugned order. Hence this appeal is hereby dismissed. April 06,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge