JUDGMENT
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Employees’ State Insurance Court, dated January 2, 1997, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 54 of 1992, wherein, the Employees’ State Insurance Court, while allowing the said O.P. filed by the first respondent herein, in part and set aside the order impugned before it, namely, the one, dated December 18, 1991, held that the first respondent is liable to pay contribution at the rate of 10 per cent on the amount paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent is stated to have engaged second and third respondents as their catering contractors for supply of lunch to their executives and the management staff of the factory at Huzur Gardens, Sembium, Madras-11 on all working days. The said engagement was based on the contract entered into between the first respondent and the second and third respondents. As per the contract, the second and third respondents agreed to supply and arrange for special lunch and snacks apart from supplying beverages, regular lunch, tea, snacks, etc. The rates for such supplies was fixed per plate of lunch including cost of ingredients, fuel, labour, etc. It is stated that pursuant to the agreement, second and third respondents supplied food stuffs and upon raising the bills for total number of items supplied, the payment used to be settled by the first respondent.
3. In the present case, the appellant raised a demand for payment of contribution in respect of the employees employed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the period 1987 to March, 1990. It appears that based on an inspection carried out by the officers of the appellant, it came to light that a sum of Rs.4,74,237 and Rs. 3,64,156.30 was paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. After issuing initial show-cause notice, the appellant passed its orders, dated December 18, 1991, determining the contribution payable by the first respondent at a sum of Rs. 60,783.89. In fact, pursuant to the show-cause notice, when the respondent was called upon to explain its stand, the first respondent, based on certain communications issued by the second and third respondents, took a categoric stand that though specific particulars as regards the wages paid to different employees employed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not available, going by one of the statements found in one of the communications of the second respondent, the wage component out of the total amounts paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would work out to10 per cent of the total payment. However the appellant rejected the said stand of the first respondent and not stopping with that, the appellant proceeded to hold that the entire amount paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be taken as wages and on that footing, the appellant passed the orders determining the contribution payable at a sum of Rs. 60,783.89 by the first respondent. When the said order was challenged before the Employees’ State Insurance Court, by the impugned order, the Employees’ State Insurance Court held that the stand of the first respondent that 10 per cent of the total payment alone could be construed as wages was acceptable and accordingly, passed the present orders which is impugned in this appeal.
4. Assailing the same, Sri Desappan, learned standing counsel for the appellant Corporation, would contend that for reaching a conclusion that 10 per cent of the amount alone would constitute as wage component, the Employees’ State Insurance Court has not given any reasoning. The learned standing counsel also contended that when the first respondent was the principal- employer, it was its bounden duty to furnish the details of the wage particulars and when the first respondent failed to discharge its responsibility by furnishing the actual wages paid to the concerned employees even if best judgment assessment is to be made, such assessment could only be based on the percentage fixed in similar cases which have been decided in the judgments, viz., the unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in CM. A. No. 1096 of 1996, dated February 24, 2004, and Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance’ Corporation, Madras v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Mopped Division (Registered Office) Madras and Ors. 2004 (2) LLJ 30 (Mad) wherein in respect of a construction contract it was held that 25 per cent of the total contract amount should be taken as the labour charges.
5. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, in the course of his submissions, pointed out that under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, an appeal can be validly made challenging the order of the Employees’ State Insurance Court, where it involves a substantial question of law. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, in the anvil of the said provision, when the order of the Employees’ State Insurance Court impugned in this appeal is considered, when the Employees’ State Insurance Court has only made a factual analysis of various circumstances pleaded before it and reached a conclusion as to the percentage of wages that could have been reasonably fixed for payment of contribution, in the absence of any question of law much less substantial question of law, the order of the Employees’ State Insurance Court should not be interfered with.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for either parties, I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent. The learned Counsel also took me through the impugned order in particular, Para. 7 onwards. On a reading of the order impugned in this appeal, I find that the Employees’ State Insurance Court after having considered the nature of contract entered into between the first respondent and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the prices agreed to be meted out for the supply of lunch, beverages, etc., reached a conclusion that the claim of the first respondent that 10 per cent of the total amounts paid to the respondents 2 and 3 alone could be taken as “wage component”. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Employees’ State Insurance Court has made an analysis of the very many facts which were placed before it in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence which related to the contract between first respondent and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. When the Employees’ State Insurance Court has, thus, taken a decision based on an analysis of different facts while reaching its conclusion as to what percentage of total amount paid to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would be construed as wages, I am afraid that in an appeal preferred under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, in the absence of a substantial question of law, it would be appropriate (inappropriate ?) for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Act in order to interfere with such a factual finding merely because there would be scope for this Court to even hold that a different percentage could have been taken as wage component of the total payment made to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I therefore, do not venture to make such an exercise in the limited, jurisdiction available in an appeal provided under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Act. Inasmuch as I am convinced that the analysis made by the Employees Stale Insurance Court in the order impugned was perfectly legal and since I do not find any serious illegality or irregularity in the analysis of the evidence so made by the Employees’ State Insurance Court, there is no scope to interfere with the same.
7. Having regard to my above conclusions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and for the very same reason, I am not in a position to apply the decisions relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the first respondent-Corporation,
8. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.