{"id":190544,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-01T22:35:03","modified_gmt":"2018-06-01T17:05:03","slug":"e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANOALoR,E\u00bb_\nOATEO THIS THE 25?\" DAY OF JANUARY, 2o_;o_\": \nBEFORE ' l '\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. 3UST1CE C.R,;'k'U'i~iA,RjASw.A,{vs%_  \n\nC[V\\-\" '\n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No,9lOQ3\/2oo?.i'ES~1)' \nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST A.DREA.LfA:o.9oo4[2oof7 u(''E;\"S'i'')' 1' V\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. E.S.I. Corporation, \" \nRegional Office (E<a'r"n.atal:a) '' ' \u00bb\nNo.10, Binny Fie3'idS',1.,_,.'  =i \nBinnypet, Ba nga'iore.:.5f.6O  V\nRepresented by \u00e9:tS'_.Reg'ion_a'lEfi:=ireCAtor}, \n\n2. The Recovery,OfvFa_*Ceif,"\u00ab., * _" \nE,S.i. Cor"'\u00a7)Oi'ati'On,'    \nRegional Off,ECe.(KaArnata!\u00ab;a')--,_ \nNo.10, Binny"i?iel'dS,  , V\nBinnypet, Banga'lo_re'--56G' O23. "  Appellants\n  '  ..... .. (Common in both the appeals)\n\n('By SAri'.v\\,\/1. N_ar=AaS--iTn-ha Holla, Advocate)\n\n ANDT" ~_ \n\n M\/S. Surfa' Co'--atS"(Bangalore) Ltd,\n-jj;S3,9',-.465" 'A' C\ufb01oss,\n4.  EloCl<,..Rajajinagar,\n V._E5a.n"g~ai-o_rge\u00a5'gS6O O10.\n."R...Re_pfreSented by its\n"Joint Managing Director.  Respondent<\/pre>\n
(Common in both the appeals)<\/p>\n
(\u00bb\u00bbB,\\Z’Sri. D. Leelakrishna, Advocate for OR)<\/p>\n
4\/<\/p>\n
These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed under Section<\/p>\n
82(2) of ESI Act 1948, against the Order dated_H;”2:[%i;a2QVOi7.
\npassed in ESI Application i\\los.10\/2005 and 21\/200,3on::th,e’*if}’ie ‘
\nof Judge, ESI Court, Bangalore, aliowing the ESI_–ap’p!–i,c_at’i’o.n.’-_  <\/p>\n
These Miscellaneous First Appeals cgovrhinggon fo’r_\u00bb_,he\u00bbar’~ing.4 ‘this\ufb01,<\/p>\n
day, the Court delivered the following”:-…V_<\/p>\n
MFA 9003\/2007 is ri1\u00e9’ed._”8’r.,df\u00e9i’  of the
\nEmployees’ State  Act’ for short)
\nagainst the order” in ESI Application
\nNo.10\/2005 ofESI Court, Bangalore,<\/p>\n
aliowirig the  n<\/p>\n
(2) iviFA,,9oo\u00e9i;*-2.,O07″ is’l”iled under section 82(2) of the ESI<\/p>\n
Ai:t_ ag’a.ins’t  order dated 12.4.2007 passed in ESI Application<\/p>\n
 N0.2’Vii,i..5_VO.G_$lA  of the Budge, ESE Court, Bangalore,<\/p>\n
C’ ‘wv_.’Cal’l’owing Athe E51 application.<\/p>\n
A”4’V.t~h_e”‘lC0u’;\u00a7t below.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘V~,Cf(T3V}VlCi3–arties will be referred with reference to the status in<\/p>\n
2\/<\/p>\n
(4) The case of the applicant in the Court below fi:.n>uESI<\/p>\n
Application No.10\/2005 is as under:\n<\/p>\n
4.1 M\/s Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Limited iS__,<\/p>\n
this application. The applicant W coggnpaiiy’ <\/p>\n
manufacture and marketing of decorative’-paints. y.T.he:’com:pa’riy”Q<\/p>\n
has its manufacturing units in E3an\u00a7aVVl.o’re_  H The
\nemployees of the company Office at
\nBangalore and in various   units are
\ncovered under the ;_pro’v.cii1Sion:s’of;  110 employees
\nout of 170  under the purview
\nof the E81 of both employer and
\nemployees are  respondent — Corporation in<\/p>\n
respect of _these e”mp’lo~ye’es.”‘-\n<\/p>\n
 .’4:.’2–. In they co”r~–porate office of the applicant company there<\/p>\n
 is a ll\/larl:.e’tin’g”.”_D.iv’i;;si’on wherein 26 employees were working<\/p>\n
vfyduring  yyea.r’f1998~99. Out of these employees, 21<\/p>\n
4: came within the purview of the ESI Act and 5<\/p>\n
lint.”v..em.p_lo’y-eesllfeil outside the purview of the said Act having regard<\/p>\n
salary {irawn by each of them at that time. The<\/p>\n
2\/<\/p>\n
applicant W company recovered contribution from 21 zehgible<\/p>\n
employees at 1.75% of their salary and paid the <\/p>\n
respondent W Corporation aiongwith its COl’ltl’lblJtl0li”…av\ufb01vA.’.:4.0755\/C”!<\/p>\n
In respect of 5 employees who wereg.not0_0a’L; <\/p>\n
covered, no ESI contribution was die_ducte’dA.l”‘rom the-ir’..s’ai’aryj <\/p>\n
no contribution was paid by the appiviicant – co’i.\u00bbp;::m-y. <\/p>\n
4.3 When the matter ‘4t’n.e_…’,l\u00a7:)epiity Director of
\nthe respondent ~ Cor_p’oratio:n”‘b’y  20.5.2000 called
\nupon the appHC\u00a2nti’X’f  “r’3VV0:I’Wcontribution on the
\nsales commi_ss.i_on”‘ip:a’idV*<go!the staff of the company.
\n3:} responseiityhe'.retAo."'thfe–.:app'l'ic.a"r'i\u00abtcompany by its letter dated
\n16.6.2000 deniedluitsv  ESE contribution on the sales
\nco..m\u00abmissv_i..o\u00a7ri  tg….t1l'l\u00a7'__Arriarketing personnel. The first<\/p>\n
relspyonident the.reaf'te__r by order dated 21.12.2000 directed the<\/p>\n
 secor\u00e9d:2"r.e'spon.dy-entvllv- Recovery Officer attached to the<\/p>\n
V'7T__respohden'tzCorporation to recover from the applicant ~<\/p>\n
.1-.comp,ahyi–.ESl"'contribution on the sales commission paid to the<\/p>\n
.,__A.:\u00a2__4ma.r.keting"Apersonnel. The second respondent — Recovery<\/p>\n
 thereupon issued notice dated 20.12.2000 to the<\/p>\n
9\/<\/p>\n
appiicant W company calling upon it to pay Rs.2O,667\/1-?"\u00bbt.On<\/p>\n
5.1.2001 the appiicant — Company paid Rs.1o,49~s, to i’3\u00a5’a._rcl’.,~100990;.:_Ii1.’::_t’esp0nse thereto, the applicant –
\nco.vmgpany.\u00bbh_yVvits letter””dat__e_d,29.8.2000 intimated the respondent<\/p>\n
–VCorp:o’ratio.,n’th’at”‘th_e sales commission paid to the marketing<\/p>\n
 Staff  and the same was being paid to them<\/p>\n
was an incei}tE”vge.’based on their performance. it was further<\/p>\n
.1 -pvoihjted ‘tout that a majority of the marketing personnel of the<\/p>\n
 “_V-.iap-pEica’nt ~ company were drawing emoluments far in excess of<\/p>\n
 per month and hence not covered under the ESI Act.<\/p>\n
61\/<\/p>\n
The first respondent by its Eetter dated 11.10.2000 clarified that<\/p>\n
sakes commission attracts ESI contribution and therefo’reV.ESI<\/p>\n
contribution was payable by the appiicant — companyrin_jr.esp\u00a3e_ct~.<\/p>\n
of the sales commission paid to its empEoyees_…._L:~Ap’pA.E.i:ca_ntf’4 <\/p>\n
company caicutated the ESI contijiibutiion;<\/p>\n
commission paid to 10 of its rnVar_l4<eting*y_personn\u00e9rlrwho izv\u00e9'r'e"'g<\/p>\n
covered rsnder the E81 Act and paid sr;n"…oQ_V'f\u00a7"<V's.E3':;::}15\/– for
\nthe period from Apri|*\u00a7996  first respondent\n<\/p>\n
– Corporation. The first ._it:s letter dated<\/p>\n
21.12.2000 calledf the\u20ac;appE.i'<:ant'"\u00bbr~….5company to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.S2,34t1:.:\u00a7t3  ttr-emperiod from April-1996 to
\nMarch-1998. A'TVhereu'p.Q.h.fi1e"a.p"p!i'cant — company paid a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,-417\/–… _<\/p>\n
  t:tie._vrnatter stood thus, the first respondent has<\/p>\n
passe"d_a-Toyordei_~v.,oriAV.f':;'1w'i.1.2005 under section 45-C to 454 of the<\/p>\n
 Act di"rect.ing=the second respondent A Recovery Officer of the<\/p>\n
 V\u00e9tcorporation to recover from the appiicant –<\/p>\n
V"'-.:_'Vco_nn__pa.ny' Rs.52,386\/– together with interest. This order was not<\/p>\n
  the first respondent to the applicant W company directly,<\/p>\n
2\/<\/p>\n
but the second respondent has enclosed this letter aEongw_i_t_h his<\/p>\n
order dated 18.1.2005 directing the applicant ~ company'–t.o–\u00ab_:p"a,y<\/p>\n
the said sum within 15 days.\n<\/p>\n
54 Being aggrieved by the V-o’rde.rs <\/p>\n
respondents, the applicant ~ compaiinyirehals <\/p>\n
Application No.21\/2005 before  Court i”o_r asidelt<\/p>\n
the order dated 11.1.2005 is-sued  first respondent to the
\nsecond respondent and the orde_r’  issued by the<\/p>\n
second respondent t_o.t:he_  -e–.4:c’o’f9..paVny~;. <\/p>\n
(6) legs: ‘ApVp”licf\u00a7..tioeqv44″i\\io.”10\/2005, the respondent \u00ab- ESI
\nCorporation has5.._fi%le.d VVthe’A.o”bj:e’Ctions before the ESE Court as
\nunder llllll –\n<\/p>\n
 6.1-\u00bb The a.op.l%iAc~a_nt — company is chalienging recovery notice<\/p>\n
 dated 2&2.’-11;2x005f:foAi:=’V’Fts.10,172\/M for the period from Aprilw1998<\/p>\n
V’7′,_l:o <March'l'1z9'_<;;"i"'<1'{0\\';,:.)'___:' <\/p>\n
perusal of the ietter and Insurance IFlSp\u20acCtOl"_S-…,rA\u00e9pQvr"t\u00a7, ._itlis  <\/p>\n
observed that commission is paid with ternwsyarid'cohoi–i:i0ns.__aftetr'<\/p>\n
60 days. The payment of c0i'riVn'.iss\u00e90n"'.wii-! f0rr_n7~thVleA.pail;'t<\/p>\n
wages under section 2(22) of the  ltielnce appiicant ~
\ncompany was requested to'  Rs.I9",874\/~ on
\nabove wages by addressing a_lV_e'tt.er.v'dated"'~8".Ei.';;'v0V'00 and aiso by<\/p>\n
subsequent reminde:9'Acijyai.t'ed. 'I-V."Appiicant vide letters<\/p>\n
dated   commission was not
\nwages. Adilptiyeant vv'a_.s.VAeiii-3;04r"tII:\u00e9d""Vide letter dated 11.10.2000
\nthat sales :.::ommlias'sE.0n"falis-ulnftder the definition of first part of
\n yun;deri..y"csec't.iori .'3v3f(v2'2")AVand hence contribution is payable<\/p>\n
andiactuj-alto'  lA'IQf'.l'C("3 was issued _for the above dues on<\/p>\n
  there was no payment, C-19 ciaim for<\/p>\n
"'~f'i2\u00bbs;2'0\u00bb,ssy7\/W"-was issued on 21.12.2000 vide ietter dated<\/p>\n
  At that juncture, applicant M company reported that<\/p>\n
"c0:'m.mission paid as reported by the Insurance Inspector is<\/p>\n
07-._inc\u00ab!ust've of commission paid to exempted employees and paid<\/p>\n
(\/<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
contribution of Rs.1o,495\/\u00bb on 9.1.2001′ Applicant hwa..s’-.ynot<\/p>\n
furnished the full records to prove that commissi~0n4’_p’_ai-4ri;~i’s._<\/p>\n
inclusive of commission paid to exempted\u00bb””~.eri1:pl~oyeesQ_\u00e97-\u00bb<\/p>\n
Therefore applicant is liable to  \u00bb’pAaiarice’i”<\/p>\n
Rs.10,162\/W + Rs.10\/– – Rs.1O,172\/5.\n<\/p>\n
6.2 Applicant did not prove  of”itns._pection or at
\nthe time of inspection or   ciaim sent by
\nrespondent ~ Corporation tti’at”‘vvere exempted
\nby virtue of  contention is
\nnot accepta_b.ie.uoto pay contribution as
\nciaimed. :”Sintte   payable, revenue recovery<\/p>\n
action initiatediiundevr \u00a7’e_c.tion  is proper and justified.<\/p>\n
Appiication No.21\/2085, the respondent –\n<\/p>\n
Cor”por:at.io’rt  “file.dv:”i.3bjections in the E331 Court as under:<\/p>\n
Tyne’ applicant is disputing demand of amount of<\/p>\n
.: –v..con.t\u00bb:ibution in respect of sales commission paid to its employees<\/p>\n
‘A’~4″_i~._fo~ri.’tl”ieperiod from April-1996 to March–1998 on the plea that he<\/p>\n
 “paid an amount of Rs.20,532\/– (Rs.\u20ac>,161\/– + Rs.1,954\/\u00bb \u00ab+~<\/p>\n
\u20ac\/’<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.12,417\/–), which is actually due on the saies commisswiontpaid<\/p>\n
to covered employees. The applicant is contending\u00ab’.fth.a:t’5<\/p>\n
including sales commission many employees are,V_\u00a7o.iVVng.l.:’o:;t oi, <\/p>\n
coverage and hence no contribution is p_aya.bl’e “on-._ttie._sa.ies’<\/p>\n
commission paid to ‘not coveted.4_einp’loy’ees’ ewhosve. <\/p>\n
exceeded Rs.3,000\/– or Rs.E3,500\/–‘0]=.rt_3x%ut_heiiasineitnier given
\nproper justification nor f3f’OCii_;’l”C.@.Cl the  substantiate the<\/p>\n
correctness of the payment  ..\n<\/p>\n
7.2 Sales  –i..fgie.”_trieperiod from April–1996
\nto Decen1ber.~–1–99Au\u20acS=iVs  sales commission paid
\nfor the    to March–1998 is
\nRs,6,-47,086\/~_’ , jalill ”  sales commission paid is<\/p>\n
Rs-i8.r34r0ili3\/\u00abIi<\/p>\n
 who verified the records on 27.4.2000<\/p>\n
 pointed out  the employer has failed to pay contribution<\/p>\n
“~-iin’~r_espect otsales commission. Hence the applicant has been<\/p>\n
to pay the contributions. Though the employer has<\/p>\n
“jm’adeV___some part payments totaling Rs.20,532\/~, he has not<\/p>\n
1″\u00ab-..’:fu~rnished the details as to how certain employees go out of<\/p>\n
2\/”\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
coverage and he has not produced any records before’ the<\/p>\n
insurance Inspector in order to substantiate the correct:n’ef’iss..”of<\/p>\n
the payment made by him. Therefore the E551 Co-rporatiyonl <\/p>\n
adjusted the amount of Rs..20,S32\/~ and’-clain%ied_.;.”thVei_bVa’l–la’nce<\/p>\n
amount alongwith interest.\n<\/p>\n
7.4 The respondent further   has
\nbeen issued to the  ltioirgaoration,
\naction has been initiated b’y_._t”he  019 is
\naddressed to the   :a’:colJ’r”ionly is Sent to the<\/p>\n
appiicant. The d:el;.ai’1i.sa’;-of the ..r;r’a~i.rnijarr”‘ar\ufb01,ount of Rs.5.2,386\/– has
\nbeen furnished  ‘l ‘<\/p>\n
7.5 ,”-me applicant” has not given proper justification nor
\np-rfoVdurced”rr~the5.–.’records to\u00e9vsuwbistantiate the correctness of the part<\/p>\n
payrh-enta.rhna.d’e,byfhim, Hence revenue recovery action has<\/p>\n
 ll’litl’i3’if\u20acdr.~v”.ai\ufb01i:’Cfl is legal and in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
 “‘..j*..{8)”Ti’.hevVsum and substance of the findings of Court below<\/p>\n
A’  as; urxderi:\n<\/p>\n
e\/<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
8.1 in ESE Appiication N010\/2005, the E531 Co.t}r.t”‘ehas
\nraised the foiiowing Issues. I<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the appiicant proves  .\n<\/p>\n
itabie to pay ESI contVr’t’tA)ot:”or.i Hon:
\ncommission paid to  tTta’r.\u00a5\u20acet’i,t1Q
\nDersonnei as the saiiTT\u00a3>.,..i~WiJi”‘-not .3’_'”\\V’i7:y’K\\j,?i?*t.oVVV
\nwages under the ESEuuA:_t’ahd th’e.refo’re the
\nrecovery noti,c'”e.,_date’d”‘2′?.–.i4.Z005 is iiiaibie” to
\nbe set aside.  _    <\/p>\n
(it) To whatareiiefi.th’e…;j:ppiitcyantii to ?<\/p>\n
8.2 In issr~Ap1p:2i.e;itieh_No’.zifpzopds, the E51 Court has
\nraised the rot]ow_ihg’V’tis’sees2.\n<\/p>\n
(i) ‘Whether-th’eVA’a..pp–!\u00e9.icaiit proves that he is not
\n yi’tat)i’e..,At0~”‘pa.y contribution on the sales
\n_  ;_…cornmissio’n——–paid to the marketing staff ?
\n \u00bb(i;i’)~  WtieAthe_r the applicant further proves that
\n  t”‘r~.,.;._\u00a7.’ C}1’9 notice and recovery notice dated
\nv_.~i1.3.=.A2OO5 and 18.1.2005 are not
\n sustaihabie and therefore iiabie to be set<\/p>\n
aside. ?\n<\/p>\n
   What order ?\n<\/p>\n
t\/’<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
8.3 The Court below has observed that.-‘–.__the<\/p>\n
Correspondence in E><.A3 and A~2 probablise applicanttha\u00e9yicynlg.<\/p>\n
disputed the liability to pay contribution in regard  <\/p>\n
commission. When there is a dispute u'nder\u00ab.Se"ction:?i5_–\u00bb\u00a5\u00a7,'it is;<\/p>\n
mandatory for the Corporation to detetrn\ufb01inie the,a*mouht"'–.of"~_<\/p>\n
contribution payable by the concerhehdil\u00bb But in ofllthe it<\/p>\n
case, no such determination has"  5:30, the
\ncontention of the applicant ral justice
\nare not complied is:..acce:ptecil;i" below held
\nthat the Corpora\u00a7t'i'ojfl_"~–hfais"3V'.ijot":.c–o:rti–p_ll'ed:"\u00bbSeVction 45~A of the ESE<\/p>\n
ACE.\n<\/p>\n
8.4 The VVC\u00ab.(4)_l’Ji’.t  further observed that sales
\nco–vm’missv_i~o5n ivsdpaid to”–the___workmen for the work undertaken by<\/p>\n
them’ un’ci.ter,th’e”sche_rhe i.e. the target achieved by individual<\/p>\n
 workman1\u00bb’It.Visu–h:otA’cI=pVaid uniformly to all the workmen. It is not<\/p>\n
V7._\u00abpai'<jV at an ziritlervlal of 60 days. it is paid according to the<\/p>\n
 'So, the contention that the sales commission in the<\/p>\n
  the case is a wage is rejected. Therefore the Court<\/p>\n
Abeiowuheld that the saies incentive given to the workmen is not<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
the wage and the appiicant in each of the cases are entit’io’e’d.for<\/p>\n
refund of the amount deposited by them towards <\/p>\n
after the period fixed for appeai.\n<\/p>\n
(9) Feeling aggrieved by the order’:.of1t_he’iVCourt <\/p>\n
ESE Corporation has preferred these_vt*wo ap’pe:ais._   <\/p>\n
(10) I have heardthe’:iearneVdmcAo’u.i_is’ei~.for  axppeilants<\/p>\n
as weil as the iearned cousnei fo~r_the”‘r\u00e9sp–o.nd–\u00e9_nts~.<\/p>\n
(11) Learned ‘i”o.r_t1t*.e a;–;rpe:.1arits’VVsubmits as under:<\/p>\n
:1.1 LearVn’ed{5v_Cou;’nVse_l:”for th.e%appeJ|ant ~ Corporation<\/p>\n
invited the attention Ex_.R1(a) dated 19.1.2000
\nwhich is as.Letter”‘written   applicant — company to the
\nC’orp”orati’on’ v,i=here.iAn it is”‘i’n’dVicated that the sales commission is<\/p>\n
paid’ personnei at the r.ate specified in the<\/p>\n
 Vi”ri..a’;3pointn”i,e’nt or.der_.  Learned counsel aiso invited the attention<\/p>\n
 Court _to’1-Ex.R1(d) which is the appointment order issued<\/p>\n
 Parnpana, Sales Representative. In Ex.R1(d) it is<\/p>\n
. v-V:i”p.-d’iV’c’ateTd that he is entitied for saies _comi”nission at 0.25% on<\/p>\n
D’<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
net collection as per the terms and conditions prescribed iiy”‘\u00bbt.he<\/p>\n
company, after confirmation of service.\n<\/p>\n
11.2 Learned cottnsei further invited the atte_n_jt.i.on:.C.:of4_this”  <\/p>\n
Court to the definition of ‘wages’ as \u00a7}E:*i’:;:.’S\u20acCVtL::i.<Q'r]':,  <\/p>\n
Act. 'Wages' means aii remunerati_on paid or pay.a".i;;\u00a7e'; in Cjash <\/p>\n
to an emplovee, if the terms of th"e\u00ab\u00abV.:.:Contract*.o'f:e'i'i'ii$ipyment,
\nexpress or impiied, were fuitm-ed.  that
\nthe payment of saiesycommissi'o.n'is':par"'t.:VVo'i.:'."t:ifi'e appointment
\norder. So the term \u00e9piettainiinyg  commission
\nis mentioned in  Therefore saies
\ncommission  appi.-Canpcompany is
\ntiable to pay the to the ESE Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
 11..3.i.i#earnedV”coi.in_sei. aiso invited the attention of this<\/p>\n
Court\u00bb to -E_V>V<.A:–1.2v.Vst'atement, wherein it is indicated that sates<\/p>\n
 commission    monthly basis. Therefore the contention<\/p>\n
Wpf the apupii.cant"t'hat the sates commission is paid beyond 60<\/p>\n
.1 .dfa\\,%'g.camot'i;e accepted since Ex.A–12 statement cteariy<\/p>\n
C"~"gind.i.t.–ate:sCthat the sales commission is paid on monthiy basis.<\/p>\n
(\/"\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
11.4 Learned counsel for the appe\u00e9lants further submits<\/p>\n
that the figures or the calculations in the records maint4a..in~e_d~.i’n<\/p>\n
the applicant office are not in dispute. The question.lV_ls”Whe–the-:__” _<\/p>\n
the sales commission paid to an employee constitutv-es\ufb02wlaigesg or “=<\/p>\n
not. Therefore Section~45 of the E31 Act mia>,i.:’no’t..be’ Vap’p’ii:ca’b’ie_r’<\/p>\n
to the facts and circumstances of vtheacasel.’-..  In Wofl his <\/p>\n
contention, he relies on the decision__<of-_t_hi–s_g Couitinl the} case of
\nM\/s SIDDESHWAR AND c'orMfPAAN'\u00a7r, ;irLJ'aLj1.'jugs. EMPLOYEES'
\nSTME INSURANCE CQRPOR\/ii-1.oi\\i,'–sAsN\u20ac\u00a7Av_Loii.E"'ANo OTHERS<\/p>\n
reported in    it isheld as under:\n<\/p>\n
5* (c) ” iig:t?~l.PL\u20acf4\u00a7>\u00a7EE:s”{_’ srA5rE”‘ INSURANCE ACT,<\/p>\n
1948,  W Contributions ~
\nDeterminafrl.40″\u00bb.  of arrears of –\n<\/p>\n
Rec;ui’r’ement o\u00bb\u00a7_gVi’v”ir3gV’employer opportunity of being
\n iJbef’o.re ilnitlatiyng certificate action under<\/p>\n
 of Act — Such requirement
\nifcoVntem’p’lAa”ted’iiinder Act, where figures pertaining to
\npa~)’mer?q’t’of<i"wages and other relevant particulars for
\nV'-\u00bb.detern:viVn':ation of amount of arrears of contributions
\nareculled out from books of accounts maintained by
\nemployer himself — Certificate issued cannot be held
\n ~~-bad m_ereEy because employer was not heard before<\/p>\n
it was issued.\n<\/p>\n
5\/”\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
HELD : In the present case, there is no dispute that<\/p>\n
the Insurance Inspector inspected the records…__<\/p>\n
reiating to the matter in the premises of <\/p>\n
appellant’s factory and the appeiiant aiiowed it_;’i:’o   <\/p>\n
inspected. The Inspector, thereafter, found  I<\/p>\n
actuai figure with reference to eachCOntri_’butio’ns’4 as._’x <\/p>\n
has to be made without any o.b}e:;:tion  <\/p>\n
employer, The Inspector d.ird__ performed of  to<\/p>\n
\u00e9nsilecting records and on th’e_R’t>asis of._Vre\u00bbco.rdsr:he
\nassessed from the amount pa–i–d…’to_w*ards thev–.wa<'_::;es
\namounting 'to Rs.6,9"\u20aci,V:\u20aca2A5\u20ac93j_b'7vpaiosfenmduring the<\/p>\n
reievant period.' In such"circumsta'nces',jV\u00abthere was<\/p>\n
no quie'stiion;':ii,ofAo;:fS'ect'i*o'n- 4S"f'A""oo4being applied or
\nbeconi'mg'– 'app'licf;,.b}:ie..,v4'to_l"the' facts of the case.
\nRecourseamay be adde,.d:"'to4'\u00a7ection 45"\/A proceedings<\/p>\n
oniyin cases ._where either no returns or particuiars<\/p>\n
 .__or .fre'gisters_ or reoco—rd\u00abs' are submitted or furnished or<\/p>\n
\u00bbma\u00bb!nta.,in'ed'\u00ab.,_oby__ the Company or in cases where<\/p>\n
o"'I.ns'pect'oraQ_rfofficial of the Corporation referred to<\/p>\n
under S.e~c't;i4{:.–no 45 are prevented by the principal or<\/p>\n
immediate employer or any other person from<\/p>\n
 :f..ex'e~r_cising his powers and discharge his duties. In<\/p>\n
  the present case, neither of these circumstances do<\/p>\n
   __appear nor has been reported. So there was no such<\/p>\n
circumstance and conditions in existence in which<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
question of obligation under Section 45–A would<\/p>\n
have arisen.”\n<\/p>\n
11.5 Learned counsel for the appellant further vsul’ljrn.i.ts<\/p>\n
that no issue was framed by the Court oelow thatjthefr’e..’__:was<\/p>\n
denial of opportunity to the applicant to case.”  <\/p>\n
Proceedings under section–75 of the ESI A\u00e9ctjj.areithe4’or’vi.o’in.al1′<\/p>\n
proceedings and therefore the applicant ha_d”full  to <\/p>\n
establish their case.\n<\/p>\n
(12) Learned counsel .fo’l=..ythefreispond:e’n.t\/applicarlt in both<\/p>\n
th e a p p ea l s so l3i’TE  s;’ij\u00a7:.ri’cl ei  i<\/p>\n
12.1 Court is invited to Section
\n2(22)(c) of’theu’E”S%IM  to Section 2(22)(c), wages
\ndoesy”notffinc_l_ude  paid to the person employed to<\/p>\n
dei’r–ay.=specia.ly:_’e${pen-ses entailed on him by the nature of his<\/p>\n
hm”i\u00bb–._employme’nt”.A  sales coihinissioripaid by the applicant ~<\/p>\n
_:%_i&r~.c.on\u00e9pany to~.the employees come under defray special expenses.<\/p>\n
‘1._’_’Tlj1eir\u00e9r\u00a7Vrie”it is not wages.\n<\/p>\n
e\/\/<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
12.2 Learned counsel for the respondent\/applicant further<\/p>\n
submits that the incentive or the sales commission is.._no4t”o_n<\/p>\n
monthly basis. It is purely paid on the performa1fi.ce”i\u00bb.oVf–.:t:l1.e__’_<\/p>\n
individual employee. Amounts pertaining to sa–le’sv–c:on1’rnissVion4 <\/p>\n
are paid only after 60 days. The contents’of’ E\u00ab:\u00ab:…i’–\\li–.’:1″;”‘2’arei..__n’o:t_*A<\/p>\n
disputed by the applicant. This E>\u20ac.A_-x12 fugrniishecl.._inWo_i3’dedr <\/p>\n
to indicate that the five employees  not un’de_r theipurview<\/p>\n
of ESE Act because of the wag_eif|im;:_t. ; ”\n<\/p>\n
(13) In both  applicat\u00abion.s’;~?theVPersonal Manager of<\/p>\n
the applicant ~ ie>(a.;rri.ii’ied as AWW1 and he<\/p>\n
has filed chievf~e’xamvinatiognl  an affidavit. Its contents<\/p>\n
are as under:\n<\/p>\n
itV.”–.1’3′;lv3.\u20ac’A5li’\u00bbla1″l’statesvviiiiinivhis evidence that the applicant —<\/p>\n
comipahyg.”fe’g_istered office at Bangalore. The applicant<\/p>\n
v:’._iz””‘4’vCompany  in the manufacturing and marketing of<\/p>\n
….i’\u00a7d-e\u00ab\u00abco.<.ative lif\ufb01tnts. The company has its manufacturing units in<\/p>\n
it"–.l3a._rig'aAlore:.and Chennai. He further states that 110 employees<\/p>\n
7o'ut..Qf__i7O employees of the company come under the purview<\/p>\n
ofthe E81 Act. He further states that in the Corporate Office<\/p>\n
9\/'<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
of the applicant \u00bb~ company there is a Marketing iDiv’l–E.__sion<\/p>\n
wherein 26 employees were working during the yearwi9:982\u00a799’~…<\/p>\n
Out of these employees, 2: employees came withinthe.pdryilewlg’ 9′<\/p>\n
of the ESI Act and 5 employees fell ouitsidei\u00abtheppiiryligew <\/p>\n
said Act having regard to the salary draiwni’-by’ each-.l.of..then:\u20ac’*a0t”~<\/p>\n
that time. in respect of’ 5 employeegs w”ho.wer_”e  all
\neligible to be covered, no ES; con.l;i’r’i’im’ti’on”-was de’cl’Lrc’ted from
\ntheir salary and no contribution;_was.l3et1ai_re:d0’_’t.o’ be paid by the<\/p>\n
applicant ~ company  <\/p>\n
13.2 AW–:;i.._ ldr\ufb01thellr ‘  the respondent —
\nCorporation by ‘-its .let’t\u00e9:if\u00bb.,g:da,t4edc:_:V’1*–8’.8.2000 as per Ex.A4 called
\nupon the applicantito pvay’uE:S’1″contribution at 6.5% on the sales<\/p>\n
commission. of”Rs.3,n0″5-;7{l_5\/.- for the period from April~1998 to<\/p>\n
Ma’r_ch-Vjj9\u00bb99  ‘sliVii*.<i___of Rs.19,873\/'~ failing which the same will<\/p>\n
'."\u00bb._be recoyheirieduvil'ri"i;l.e'ii:=hV'section 4S–I of the Act. The applicant<\/p>\n
Vfcorrigpany.asen"t_a.'"repiy thereto by its letter dated 29.8.2000<\/p>\n
.1-avlvohgiixvitliiacopy of the Salary Muster of the company for the<\/p>\n
"March 1999 showing the salary particulars of its<\/p>\n
'V'-.._Ma'\u00abri\u00a7eting Personnel for whom sales commission was payable.<\/p>\n
\u00a7<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
He also states that no ESI contribution was payable on the–“s_ales<\/p>\n
commission paid to the four sales personnel viz. S. ;,3y~atgimna,k<\/p>\n
M.R. Satish, R. Jayarao and C.l\\l. Madhuranath   <\/p>\n
covered under the E81 Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.3 In ESI Application No.21\/2OOS’,__thenPers.o_na’l.lVi=an’ag–e:r”~_<\/p>\n
further states that in the Marketing\ufb02llisivisiovszxof  aipplllicawnt – 9<\/p>\n
company 14 employees were.wor.i_’syaA9lai95y_ .’_c’ontvrIb.u’tion was payable by<\/p>\n
the applicant’conipajr}_y in7_r’esp’e.c’t of those persons.<\/p>\n
13.4 In   NO.10\/2005 during cross-\n<\/p>\n
e;{_a.n1inat,io;ny AW\u00bb1 u\u00a5~”Per_sonal Manager states that applicant —<\/p>\n
co’mjpany.,  pai<l:R.s_.10,000\/\u00bb and odd after the receipt of the<\/p>\n
 notice.~_l\u00a7'\u00a7–..VithVe'aC'orp;o'ration. This according to them is the<\/p>\n
deacon-tribaition. towards the coverable employees regarding sales<\/p>\n
4: .fc:'cm{i1fiiss'io4_r3, vV"'During 1998w99 salary was paid through bank.<\/p>\n
V"of'lfifrneli'.-saAi'–dllprocedure is adopted to all the staff. Before crediting<\/p>\n
3.929'\u00bb._VAth'e:VVVa'n\u00a7oLint, they prepare a wage bill. For the year 199899,<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
wage bill is available. The said documents are not produceci<\/p>\n
before the Court. It is true the wage bill will depict.\u00e9.a’btoE2ttj”t.heV<\/p>\n
employee coming out of the coverage or not.\n<\/p>\n
13.5 In ES1 Application   2<\/p>\n
examination, AW–1 ~ Personal Manager staVtes..th.at_i no
\nacknowledgment of the respective wot E”>{\u00a7\u00a3\\’1t’3~’:, letters
\nbeing served upon the respective items are
\ntyped, certain items  is not signed<\/p>\n
by any of the perfson_~oi’*tlh?eir  The account books are<\/p>\n
not prod Ex.\/A2, they have not
\nproduced any”doc-urhentsiifolr’v.e:r’i\u00a7’ication by ES: Corporation and
\nto probabiise ‘th\u00e9’u”i”%LilA”i”ibv.’:”F of workmen, who have gone out of
\nCidk\/V.\u20ac\ufb01l’ag\u00a7'”g..:-ii. aimp’nii’;i E><.A.6  7 is paid towards the<\/p>\n
salesinVc.lAen'tciy:e\u00bbi..: "itgi.s_j.for the years 1996~97. Ex.A6 and 7 are<\/p>\n
 contrib\u00e9utioinooaidlw in pursuance of a letter addressed by ESI<\/p>\n
"–\u00abiC\u00bbu\u00abtpo.rationand that they are not regular contributions paid by<\/p>\n
 The contribution claimed by the Corporation is<\/p>\n
"iTiucVh_higher than what is paid in Ex.A6 and \/~'\\.7. Ex.\/AS and<\/p>\n
 will give the particulars as to the basis on which they have<\/p>\n
(\/4.\n<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
arrived at the figures mentioned in Ex.\/i\\6 and A8.  is<\/p>\n
the xerox copy of the document to show the <\/p>\n
to SBI, but it is not clear. They have lost original…,’V_’4’FoVrV some   l <\/p>\n
the workmen, they have paid contribution:A4yi’ri;r:’i”udiirigv–.ifo.i:~.,\u00a7’aAle_si’<\/p>\n
commission. It is not true to say: that th.e”‘ciaim:.rria.d:e:by:the <\/p>\n
Corporation is proper and that thei’c’..aV’p;;;l_ican’t*_.h_as’:toligpay the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n
(14) The respohndenltl” C.’oir.poVraVtio,n\u00b0’has examined
\nInsurance Inspector  VRX\/V-1 in both the E81
\nappl’ications.__..lri.e_’st.a’te’s1;;i_n_tiis’e\u00a7{ami-nation in–chief which is filed<\/p>\n
by way of  l ‘<\/p>\n
Rvl\/-1.State4s”tha’tV.ri*e h-adgvisited the applicant — company
\narid’ es.tter’,.r.ianceregister from 1\/97 to 11\/99 and ledger<\/p>\n
 has prepared a report of his visit and<\/p>\n
 it to.._the ,R.eQional Office. He aiso found sales commission<\/p>\n
*4-l\u00abl..b,ein’g-\u00bb.paid to._the employees and after enquiry, he has collected<\/p>\n
yletter_ the employer. He has requested the employer to<\/p>\n
 some more documents. They have given a letter<\/p>\n
ityisayiilng that they are not readily available. They have coilected<\/p>\n
g,\/”\n<\/p>\n
the sample copy of the appointment order to know onVg””w,hat<\/p>\n
basis the sales commission is paid. It is marked <\/p>\n
C-18 notice was marked as E>)”llt:l.’ll’_).LA_J:’t.iVC\\54l’l’ K V’<\/p>\n
claimed on actual basis. According to h’im,'”sal_e’s_ comm’:-ssVio’n’ is7<\/p>\n
part of wages. At the time of inspec-.f:on~,._ no recorci’s’g’sh’own”to’<\/p>\n
him to show how many number oi”wuo”r’\u00bbkmen’Wll’l’go out of the<\/p>\n
coverage.\n<\/p>\n
(15) During crossj.e><a.n'i'i'riation;  that he has
\ninspected the  is the inspection
\nreport and RJg.2__isV't'~h.Ve:"o1ay:eVri also states that it may
\nbe true to  in has contended that as the
\namount is paid "asf_'t.er_7VS'  wage. As on the date of
\nth.e.factsv_..cj.{f:  case," ceiling was Rs.6,500\/~. As per<\/p>\n
A.S._Vadjdiressehdv.pt0:\u00ab"th__e Corporation, the applicant might have<\/p>\n
 conten'ded.l'as's\u00abO'me;fof the workmen have gone to the ceiling<\/p>\n
V1f__lim:t, tlieu"a.p"plVica"nt is liable to pay the contribution. The<\/p>\n
.1 -.app'li<.A.6.<\/p>\n
'*."V.._A.6.'.-showsi the coverable and non coverable employees list as<\/p>\n
 pe-rthle submission of the applicant in it.\n<\/p>\n
6\/.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
(16) The contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appellant ~ Corporation is that the sales <\/p>\n
under the purview of the wages. In thisconnectio’n;’-a’jre’i”ere.nce <\/p>\n
has to be made to section 2(22) of the tESE.:VAct._._l 3<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Wages means all reniu.nera’tli’o’n’  payvabl\u00e9, in
\ncash to an ernplovee,    ot’rvV:tfne”‘contract of
\nemi\ufb01loyment, exmessor”\u00bbi-r%i&Dl’i’e.d”ic,_gw.e’_re:'”fuliiiiled and
\ninciudes any  respect of
\nany periodiof au_th’o:r–is.e4dV:d’l.eAa’y’~eyi–lockout, strike which
\nis r1ot”l”itil’e.ug};:hl “:3; iayfoff  other additiona\u00e9
\nremun’eration,V   intervals not exceeding
\ntwo rnontuhs,iibutvdioeis r4i’.o–t,pginVclude-
\n contri’but–i-o\u00abri’ paid by the empioyer to any
\n  peii.sio:n*–.fund, or under this Act;\n<\/p>\n
 allowance or the value of any
\nA V traveliliiniig allowance.\n<\/p>\n
 (c) ~~an*y sum paid to the person ernpioyed to defray
\n”  speciai expenses eotaited on him by the nature<\/p>\n
 of his employment.\n<\/p>\n
    Any gratuity payable on di.si:harge.\n<\/p>\n
\u20ac,\/<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
(17) Ex.R1(a) clearly indicates that the sales commission is<\/p>\n
paid at the rate specified in the appointment order. <\/p>\n
an appointment order issued to Mr; \\\/ijay <\/p>\n
applicant – company. In this appointmMen_t order,”‘-iit’_’:is””cle.ariiy <\/p>\n
indicated that he will be entitled to sales cp’mr’niss_io’n:”‘at'”Q?’2yS’%:<\/p>\n
of net collection as per the terms’a’n.d conditions’pres’cr.i.bVe-d by 2 L’<\/p>\n
the Company, after confirmation of _thVe\u00bb.yseiryice:’ ‘–\u00ab$vection 2(22)
\nof the E51 Act defines the  anciidit means–.,all remuneration
\npaid or payable in cash to:.ian- terms of the<\/p>\n
contract of emp|oy.men5t_”l,’V__.;_e><pre'ss {)E'..'\u00ab~\u00a7.":7\u00a5;"tl!r')'ll\u20acd'y"V'\u00bb'\\lE'3l'\u20ac fulfilled. In<\/p>\n
the instant :case,"r*p.aym'c\u00a7n't oi\ufb02sales. Vcoinrnission is as per the
\nterms of the7contract_'off.em.pl'oyment and therefore it comes<\/p>\n
u rider the purview' "0f:Vthe..'-wages}:\n<\/p>\n
 .A{‘1’8..)_ On’e..o-f_tla.e contentions urged by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
 for thle~res.p’on’de’n–t \ufb02halppllcant is that the sales commission is not<\/p>\n
Xnpairl on “\u00b0ino”nt.h’l’yi basis and that was paid only on the<\/p>\n
4. .ypVe’rf’oi.rmance of the individual and hence it does not come under<\/p>\n
 of wages. But Ex.A\u00ab12 statement prepared by the<\/p>\n
‘”<.__Vap'plic'a'nt M company clearly indicates that sales commission was<\/p>\n
2;,\/'<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
paid on monthly basis. Therefore it is difficult to accept the
\ncontention of the learned counsei for the respondent – applicant
\nthat the sales commission does not Come under the pt:vrv:i”e_ifv-._of<\/p>\n
wages.\n<\/p>\n
(39) it is also undisputed fact that…manage’m’ent:V.is’*pVayir:g <\/p>\n
the sales commission to its employees.  its “in.dicate~d’i.n:<\/p>\n
terms of the contract of employme’nt”‘of theiapplicainitii\u00e9fcompiany. <\/p>\n
Such being the case, the__employ_ei*._holdino.'”that the sales<\/p>\n
commission is not a wage ca’rino.t be  Further the sales
\nCommission paid by the ap,p’l’ica-nit 9 a part of the<\/p>\n
contract of eafnp–loy’o\u00e9ev:.i’t-…_”iTherefore’ it comes under the purview<\/p>\n
of Section 2(22)iorthees’i.”A\u00bbrc.\u00a3;”_;iv ‘<\/p>\n
 trial Court—mainly reiied upon the decision of the<\/p>\n
irlon\ufb02ale  in the case of Whirlpool of Endia Limited<\/p>\n
 repoi\u00e9edcii in 2000-1 Lu 1101 wherein the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
..h_if:Sup’rerne Court: has observed that the employees of the company<\/p>\n
“..:wer’e.”gyive’n ‘production incentive’ under the scheme every<\/p>\n
‘ V-‘:fq-iiJ’a’rter%ly and held’ that payment of ‘production incentive’ does<\/p>\n
\ufb02_”‘ino’4t”fall within the definition of wages. But the facts and<\/p>\n
2\/’<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
circuinstances of that case and the facts and circumstan’ce.s of<\/p>\n
this case are distingiiishabie and hence the said deciis.i.o_n.’:’_i’s”;n\u00bbot_<\/p>\n
appiicabie to the facts and circumstances of the pre\u00bbs’e.nt’:5_a~se.% T<\/p>\n
(21) Learned counsel for the app’e.i\u00abian_’tsi~’also o’ir–*.,tii’*.ie<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’b|e Supreme’Co”u.rt in”th:e .c_aseAof’.i~W.eE-~iimariif<\/p>\n
(India) Private Limited ;__.s.   insurance
\nCorporation reported in V  wherein the
\nattendance bonus pay__ab|e:.””a’s tsettiliiement in the
\nconciliation proceeci\u00bbing’s:iiie’ie:’t_re:a’te\u00a3;iV  In the instant
\ncase, the sales_””c.o’nfn:\u00a7i:’_sVsion  per the terms and
\nConditions  the  ovf’i.ei’i1–.pio:yment. Therefore the sates
\ncommission can–_pe  since it fails under the first<\/p>\n
part of S.C.:tj.tiVOi’i 2(22n’)”of:Vt_h_e_:”:SI Act wherein the wage is defined.
\n 1,’ (22)  H.’i9.:’A.(:’iEJvSE3 of GEM AND COMPANY, MADRAS .\\\/s. Est<\/p>\n
coiz\u00e9iioR7Artovi\\i”;_.._,’_Mri;i3’i:As reported in –2080-II-LL} 68 the High<\/p>\n
Court oi” Madras has observed that the Management has<\/p>\n
.:’ad’n’i,iv:tLie:i__’that the sales commission can be received by the<\/p>\n
i’–.V_.er.njp|oivee’s even once in a month. Such a situation wouid<\/p>\n
 attract the latter portion of section 2(22) of the Act<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
being additional remuneration paid at the intervals not exceeding<\/p>\n
two months. In the said decision, Madras High Cou’r.tj_h’a,s<\/p>\n
observed that though there was no specific contract’..tietviee’n”lthe <\/p>\n
company and its employees regarding vpayr-nent–‘_,of_.<\/p>\n
commission, it was being paid for long r:un;.ber otyiears\u00ab.wi.th~ou’t._<\/p>\n
any interruption. Where a con’d.lt’i~on of ~._service been”<\/p>\n
implemented regularly, it coulggd assu’i’n.e_:’thVestatus’of  implied<\/p>\n
agreement between the parties._l_” ”<\/p>\n
(23) I have”  evidence of the<\/p>\n
applicant as well..,.as._Vt’\u00ab_he V”resp’io.nd_e’nt and also the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the\ufb02learnedco:e_nsegl”l’fo_:r”the appellant as well as learned
\ncounsel for thel.__re3,pon.d’ent”sw..1:1.”The terms of the contract of
\nevm.ploym.e.nt’V clearlyu’i’nd.i,ca_tes that the sales commission will be<\/p>\n
paid’ to;’irt\u00bbs_,Vemp\u00abl.oyeev$_ once in a month. Therefore it is difficult to<\/p>\n
 accept’–t:he.’co’nt’e”ij.tlt:.nof the learned counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
V’7T__tha–t the corninission is not the wages. Therefore the<\/p>\n
.1’ir_eco”rded by the Court below that the ‘sales<\/p>\n
\u00b0’~4″_V-,(:o–:i5im’issE’on’ given to the workmen is not a ‘wage is not<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
3}.\n<\/p>\n
sustainable in law and the same is liable to be se{e’..a”s.ide<\/p>\n
and accordingly, the said finding is set aside.<\/p>\n
(24) It is the contention of the learned :h’e–., <\/p>\n
respondent ~\u00ab company that eventhopgn so\u00bbmejj.o’\u00a7pth,e ’em.pi.Q’yees’<\/p>\n
were not coming under the purview of th._e’ESI AcitiVVb,e_cau’\u00a7;ex’of:”‘;<\/p>\n
the wage iimit, that evidence has  adduced by
\nthe appiicant. He also seei<s_"for  toeistabiish this
\nfact. "{he applicant intend   of employees
\nwho are drawing  the date amount<\/p>\n
feil due to the  i 'H <\/p>\n
(25) The ire-arnVeuo'ifpojons\u00e9e-i_lfbr; the respondent–applicant has
\ntaken a contention"that't_h4ere'  denial of opportunity. Section-
\n4$_.–_A of  "ESI \/aict-s.h_a__s__.been made so as to enable the<\/p>\n
Cor=po\u00bbrati-o_n to=.c1*e,tern"aine the al'l"lOE.Ei3.t' of contribution in cases<\/p>\n
 where thie—.em'pio'.yerfxrefuses to cooperate or fails to abide by the<\/p>\n
Vi\ufb02reie-yant p"r'o.vii"sio.n's of iaw. Section 45A of the ESI Act can be<\/p>\n
.1  'mypthe event the immediate empioyer or the principai<\/p>\n
is'v7fem.p'l–oy'er\u00bb'"obstructs the inspectors or any of\ufb01ciai of the<\/p>\n
tii"-.__Co'rporation from exercising his functions or discharging the<\/p>\n
0\/<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
duties. it is relevant to observe that under Section  of<\/p>\n
the E51 Act, there arises a statutory presumption in <\/p>\n
EI Court that the order it had passed under sect.ioAn”vi.;i’$iA.\u00a7:A(._1)3o”f._ <\/p>\n
the Act was sufficient proof as to]:theig\u00e9gicialiimigof:4’ttierESi’<\/p>\n
contribution. Again proceedings _a;nder’–usection:7″SiV.o:f tithe; <\/p>\n
Act being the original proceedin’g’s.,z_V”the Vap.p’lVic’ant.’:’:\u00a7had full
\nopportunity to estabtish trieiricaset.iti\ufb01jaliigrgge.the Vvglg\ufb01ientgon of
\nthe learned cousnel for the  tl’i’at is a denial of
\nopportunity has   at this stage.<\/p>\n
However in  the employees who
\nwere     than Rs.6,500\/- per
\nmonth at the VVreleva.nza-‘:point_:’oi'”time, an opportunity has to
\nbe given, to tlhei’respondent\/applicatrt. Therefore
\n have arr. opportunity to adduce<\/p>\n
evir\ufb02ancie to this point before the ES! Court.<\/p>\n
 this\u00bb…4__vIin1i’te”ciiAlpoint, he can adduce evidence and<\/p>\n
” ~ ..\u00e9S\u00abtabIish h}S__ ca se.\n<\/p>\n
   view of the above discussion, I pass the following:<\/p>\n
I\/<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
1. These Misceiianeous First Appeals are aiiowed in   <\/p>\n
2. The finding of the Court beiow with regard—…<\/p>\n
commission paid to the workmen is no’t”‘a’wage is_.set-7.asid’e;’.~ <\/p>\n
3. in the instant cases, paymentgof saies”‘comm,i~s.s.io’n”comes”<\/p>\n
under the purview of wages i.e. S-eiction (VH2). . su.b_\u00a5_seVCtiVon s(’22) it<\/p>\n
of the Erripioyees’ State In;_s.urancge—.A:ct}._ i=9_48.<\/p>\n
4. These Misceiianeous First   to the Court
\nbeiow. The appiic_a’nt_ “*  Vperniitted to adduce
\nevidence with   ;eEn\u00a7io’yiees who were not
\ncoming under\u20actVhe:j_44_pi;rvv.i’eiN4:o’t.’iV’thA:e” in view of the wage
\niimit during”‘iiniie_feie\u00a7}i:\u00e9;Vnt p’erV.i’od .”f’o’i{iy on this iimited point,
\nrespondent -~* appi’iic;\u00a7nr’caViiaadi;ce evidence and estabiish its
\ncase. Afte’rg4conciusi”on oi:\u00b0””t.h4e.’ti’iain and arguments, the triai
\nCourt shail give’ aafiri’dvi’nQ.”‘on.”this aspect.<\/p>\n
  shaii dispose of the matters within six<\/p>\n
 of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/=3
\nIUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANOALoR,E\u00bb_ OATEO THIS THE 25?” DAY OF JANUARY, 2o_;o_”: BEFORE ‘ l ‘ THE HONBLE MR. 3UST1CE C.R,;’k’U’i~iA,RjASw.A,{vs%_ C[V\\-” ‘ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No,9lOQ3\/2oo?.i’ES~1)’ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A.DREA.LfA:o.9oo4[2oof7 u(”E;”S’i”)’ 1′ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nE S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-01T17:05:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E S I Corporation vs M\\\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-01T17:05:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6098,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\",\"name\":\"E S I Corporation vs M\\\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-01T17:05:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E S I Corporation vs M\\\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-01T17:05:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-01T17:05:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010"},"wordCount":6098,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010","name":"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-01T17:05:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-vs-ms-surfa-coats-bangalore-ltd-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E S I Corporation vs M\/S Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd on 25 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}