FAO-2152-2000 [215] Employees Panchdeep M/s Metlex Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] passed by t [2] involves ar [3] ‘Employee Nath Gupt 2000 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR FAO-2152 Date of De loyees State Insurance Corporation, hdeep Bhawan, Sector 16, Faridabad versus Metlex (India) Private Limited, Gurgao HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal is directed d by the ESI Court, Gurgaon. The dispute between the Corp lves around the issue:- ‘Whether the overtime allowan to its employees would be in would the employer be requi Corporation on the same as we ESI Court relied upon ratio of ployees State Insurance Corporatio Gupta’, 1975 PLR 79 and observe a “ Under the definition of wa must be a contract between the pa and employees. Every casual work not become an employee of anoth Company, Seema Enterprises and OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 2152-2000 (O&M) of Decision : 08.12.2025 tion, abad …Appellant Gurgaon ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN ate for the appellant. rected against Order dated 05.02.2020 e Corporation as well as the assessee owance being paid by the employer e included in the wages and thus, equired to pay contribution to the as well? atio of law laid down by this Court in oration, Chandigarh versus Onkar erve as under:- f wages in section 2(22) of the Act, the e parties so as to constitute them employ orker for what ever purpose engaged do nother. In the case in hand S.K. Puri a and M/s Jali Enterprises were engaged f 1 .2020 essee yer hus, the urt in nkar , there ployer d does ri and ed for RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2152-2000 [4] Drugs & Insurance submit that [5] perusing th squarely co Court in ‘I 2000 (O&M) installation of Chilly plot and they of the Chilly plot. There is no evide parties intending to bring abou employee between them hence, it is who were engaged for repair and petitioner in respect of whom the c this regard the reliance can be pl Corporation Chandigarh Vs. Onka limit for coverage of employee und is not denied by the corporation th the work men, the petitioner is no Over-time work is not done und continuity of work therefore, als contribution towards the amount give the details How and on which by the corporation. Hence the dem Pl is illegal. So far as the amount o accordingly it is held that the p contribution towards the amount o detailed in Ex. Pl. Accordingly t petitioner and against the responde Learned counsel for the app s & Pharmaceuticals Limited rance Corporation etc.’, reported as it that the issue would be covered in fa Having heard counsel for the sing the record(s) of the case, this rely covered by the following observ ‘Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutica “ Herein, we have to consider of the wages. It is settled legal po given wide interpretation so as to entries akin to or analogous to the the enumerated entities except thos they were paid for repairs and maintenan evidence that there is intention that both t about the relationship of employer a , it is not possible to hold that these pers and maintenance were the employees of t he contribution is payable under the Act. e placed upon Employees State Insuran nkar Nath Gupta 1975 PLR 79. Further t under the ESI Act was Rs.3000/-. This fa on therefore, on wages of over time paid is not entitled to provide ESI contributio under the contract of service and is n also the petitioner is not liable to p unt of over time. The respondent failed hich basis this amount has been demand demand raised by the respondent vide E unt of repair and maintenance is concern e petitioner is not liable to pay the E nt of over time, repair and maintenance ly this issue is decided in favour of t ondent. ” e appellant has relied upon ‘India ited etc. versus Employees Sta rted as AIR Online 1996 SC 755, ed in favour of the Corporation. for the appellant and after carefully , this Court finds that the issue is observations made by the Supreme euticals Limited etc.’ (supra):- sider whether overtime wages would be pa l position that the word 'include' would s to bring within its ambit exhaustively the main part of wage, except to the exte those expressly excluded by the legislati 2 enance oth the r and person of the Act. In urance her the is fact paid to bution. is not to pay iled to nded ide Ex. cerned he ESI nce as of the ‘Indian State , to efully ue is reme be part uld be ely all extent slation RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2152-2000 2000 (O&M) would be within its sweep. In oth definition, the Legislature intended within the accepted connotation t ambit. It is seen that the Legislatu from the purview of the definition " suggested that all other categories inclusive wider definition of "w 'employee', having had the knowled for overtime work done by the emp 2(9), the omission thereof in the de A to D, would be eloquent and me or payable for overtime work, form contract. The object thereby is cle employee is an implied contract to therefore does form part of the wag the employer is enjoined to pay the be required to be complied with. T regional Director, ESI Corporatio whether HRA, Night Shift Allowa incentive allowance paid by the within the meaning of Section 2(2 elaborately and had held that the definition of wages is designedly course, bound to receive a benefi Court. Under the definition, whate an employee under the terms of the implied, is wages, Thus, if remune of the original contract of employm necessary implication becomes pa wages. It was also further held t exclusionary part in the definition wages has been given a very wid definition read along with the excl shows that the inclusive part is not mentioned therein. Taking into con definition and reading the definitio illustrative and tends to express the 'wages' used in the Act. It was Allowance, Heat, Gas and Dust all within the meaning of Section 2( other words, by employing the inclusi nded to bring in, by legal fiction, somethi ion though not strictly included within lature has expressly excluded items A to ion "wages". In other words, the Legislatu ries which are not excluded, fall within t f "wages'. The Legislature by defini wledge of the payment of the remunerati employee and having excluded it in Secti e definition of Section 2(22) excluding item d meaningful. Whatever remuneration, pa forms wages under an implied term of t s clear that the overtime work done by t ct to do overtime and the remuneration pa wages under Section 2(22). Concomitant y the contribution under the Act and shou th. This Court in Harihar Polyfibres vs. ation [(1985), 1 SCR 712] was to consid lowance, Heat, Gas and Dust allowanc the employer to his employee are wag n 2(22) of the Act. This Court consider t the Act is a welfare legislation. and t dly wide. Any ambiguous expression is, eneficent construction at the hands of t hatever remuneration is paid or payable f the contract of the employment, express uneration is paid to the employee in term loyment or in terms of a settlement which s part of the contract of employment, it eld that this inclusive part as against t ition clearly indicates that the expressi wide meaning. The inclusive part of t exclusionary part in the definition, clear not intended to be limited only to the item consideration the exclusionary part in t nition as a whole, the inclusive part is on s the wide meaning and import of the wo was held therein that HRA, Night, Sh t allowance, incentive allowance are wag n 2(22) of the Act. The facts in this ca 3 clusive ething hin its A to D slature hin the efining eration ection g items n, paid of the by the n paid itantly, should The nsider wance, wages idered nd the is, of of the able to ress or terms hich by t, it is nst the ression of the clearly e items in the is only e word , Shift wages is case RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2152-2000 [6] the employ wages inclu 2000 (O&M) squarely fall within the above ratio position is that an employee has do due to receive remuneration towa service, necessarily, it is a wage p contract. The contract of employm entry into the service. In the cours employer finds the need to have wo normal work during the course of to the employee to do overtime w employee does overtime work, it am emerges concluded implied contra appointment. It becomes integral employment from time to time. Th when the employee does work. Thi wages he receives for normal work received during the working hour wages and thereby it is a wage wit Act. The Calcutta High Court and t technical rules of construction, nam say so and, therefore, remuneration We think that the approach ado unsustainable and illegal. On the Bombay High Court in Shivraj Fin Regional Office Maharashtra, Bom C72), by Delhi High Court in E.S.I & Weaving Mills Ltd., Delhi [19 Pradesh High Court in M/s. The H Employees State Insurance Corp earlier decision referred to are cor Co. (India) Ltd. vs. ESI (1968) 1 S it was prior to the amendment of operates as a ratio. Thus, we hold t Andhra Pradesh is in accordance w not find any ground warranting inte Accordingly, the present appe mployer is required to pay contribut s including overtime allowance paid ratio laid by this Court. When the admitt s done the overtime work and received or towards the work done for his renderi ge paid or payable by virtue of the impli loyment is entered into only at the init ourse of the employment, as and when t e work done expeditiously, in addition to t e of the working hours, the employer offe e work after the working hours. When amounts to acceptance of the same. The ntract between separately on the letter ral part of original or revised contract . The employer is obligated to pay wag . This will be, in addition to payment of t ork. In other words, both the remunerati hours and overtime constitute a compos e within the meaning of Section 2(22) of t and the Karnataka High Court have appli , namely, the Legislature does not express ation paid for overtime work is not a wag adopted by these High Courts is clear the other hand, the view expressed by t j Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur v. Directo Bombay & Ors. [1974 Lab. IC 328) (V .S.I.C. New Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinni i [1977 II LLJ 420] and by the Andh he Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. orporation [1981 Lab. IC 457] and t e correct in law. The ratio in Braithwaite 1 SCR 771], is no longer applicable, sin t of the definition. As a result, it no long old that the view taken by the High Court ce with law laid down by this Court. We interference. ” t appeal is disposed off, holding that ntribution to the ESI Corporation on paid to the employees. 4 mitted d or is dering mplied initial en the to the offers hen an . There tter of ract of wages of the eration posite of the pplied pressly wage. clearly by the rector, ) (V 7 inning ndhra Ltd. v. nd the aite & , since longer ourt of We do g that on on RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2152-2000 [7] [8] disposed of 08.12.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 2000 (O&M) No other point has been argued All pending miscellaneous a ed off. .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable argued. eous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 tands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document