9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt workers covered under the Employees State Insurance Act subject to the salary unit. The principal employer used to engage independent contractors (immediate employer) for various activities and the contractors/immediate employers used to engage their own men to carry out the said jobs and the contractors are to be paid the amount according to the nature of the work done by them. The amount paid to the contractors comprises of charges of transport of materials, bonus, commission towards material purchased, profit of the contractors and labour charges also. The petitioners 1 to 19 are the regular contractors engaged by the 20th petitioner in non production related area and they are registered under the contract labour regulation and Abolit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,268.15. The amount so demanded was on the ground that the calculation of the principal employer was based on theory of probable percentage of labour charges. Aggrieved against the same, the principal employer and the contractors jointly filed petition under Section 75 of ESI Act for setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Director and for declaring that the principal employer is liable to pay total sum of Rs. 5,63,720.14. 5. The ESIOP was filed along with IA.No.162 of 1999 seeking waiver of deposit of 50% of the total amount demanded. The IA was after due contest allowed as prayed for. While allowing the IA for waiver of deposit of 50% of the total amount demanded, the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court has accepted the conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y treating 90% of the contribution bill amount of Rs. 1,45,07,900/- as wages (labour charges) paid to the workmen of the contractor by the Contractor? c)Is not the act of the ESI Corporation unjustified in invoking section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for making the arbitrary demand of Rs. 9,46,268.15, when the 20th appellant had forwarded all documents and books and accounts relating to Feeding charges. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would seriously question the correctness of the impugned order on the following grounds. The contribution payable by the 20th petitioner/principal employer is only upon 25% of total amount paid by way o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by way of memorandum dated 26.02.1982 was issued on receipt of references from some of the Regional Directors. While the earlier office memo dated 16.11.1981 was made applicable only in cases of payment relating to repair/maintenance etc., of the factory/establishment building, the memorandum dated 26.06.1982 would clarify that the bill includes apart from labour charges, cost of material, profit etc of the contractor or the person doing the job and this adoption of 25% of the total amount is applicable where the principal employer is not in a position to produce any relevant records in regard to wage elements in the bills. That means, the contributions may be charged on 25% of the amount of bills, only where the principal employer is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribution is effected by the principal employer based on the information given by the section officer of the principal employer and the contractors and the respondent officials have after making full scale inspection audited the records and satisfied with the compliance of the provisions of ESI Act. It is categorically stated in para 26 of the petition that the finding of the Deputy Director to the effect the calculation of the principal employer was based on the probable percentage of the labour charges involving the amount and the amount paid to the contractors is based on the split up details of the amount paid to the contractors on workers engaged and certified by the principal employer's Section officer based on their personal knowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed his contribution on the calculation and the quantum of the wages and not on probable percentage theory and those vouchers and receipts were also verified by the respondent officials during 1986 to 1992. The petitioners in the petition found fault with the respondent/ESI corporation in arriving at 90% labour charges and 10% alone as contractors margin without considering the expenditure incurred towards cost of materials, transportation charges, bonus, profit and commission payable to the contractor. 16. The same stand is reiterated by the petitioner side witnesses and the relevant portion of the evidence of the witnesses is also extracted in the order impugned herein. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court has after duly analysing and app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
