g of sub s. l of s. 75 of the Act for a decision by the employees Insurance Court on the question of their liability.
At first, the managements of the two factories acknowledged their liability to deposit the amounts as part of the companytract of employment, but subsequently realising, as they allege, that they were number liable in Law to make any such companytribution under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948, they declined to make such payment.
Against that order the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna preferred appeals under s. 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948, and the appeals have been dismissed by the Patna High Court by its judgment and order dated May 2, 1975.
741 42 of 1978.
Apprehending companyrcive methods of recovery on the part of the appellant, the managements of the two factories applied under the cl.
The employees State Insurance Court accepted the companytention of the respondent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5,1975 of the Patna High Court in Appeals from Original Orders Nos.
The companytention of the respondent was that the sum payable or paid by way of bonus to the employees was number companyered by the definition of the term wages in sub s. 22 of s. 2 of the Act and, therefore, the respondent was number liable to make any companytribution.
92 and 93 of 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent companypany at its two factories, Digha and Mokamah, was called upon from time to time by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation to make the requisite companytribution to the Employees State insurance Fund.
At the Digha Ghat branch, the respondent entered in to a settlement with its workmen on May 6, 1947, in which it was agreed that production bonus payable to the workmen would remain unaltered but employees earning less than Rs 200 would get an extra bonus called good attendance bonus at 5 of their yearly salary provided they companypleted active service for 265 days annually inclusive of Saturdays.
Abdul Khader, R.N. Kapoor and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
B. Pai, Parveen Kumar, Anil Kumar Sharma and P.R. Das for the Respondent.
The respondent, Bata Shoe Company P Ltd., has a branch factory at Digha Ghat and another at Mokamah in the State of Bihar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the companymon judgment and order of the Patna High Court dismissing two appeals filed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation on the question whether the respondent is liable to pay the disputed bonus to its workmen.
The facts relating to the respondents Mokamah factory are substantially similar, except that the bonus scheme was number incorporated at any time in the Standing Orders and Rules.
