THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION versus M/S TEXMO INDUSTRIES

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 08-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
v.
M/S TEXMO INDUSTRIES
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 811 of 2021)
MARCH 08, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Employee State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.2(22) and s.2(24) –
Whether ‘wages’, as defined in s.2(22) of the ESI Act would include
Conveyance Allowance paid by a Company to its employees – Held:
From the definition of wages in s.2(22), it is amply clear that wages
includes remunerative payments, but does not include compensatory
payments – Travelling allowance including the value of travelling
concession has expressly been excluded from the definition of wages,
as also any payment made to an employee to reimburse or
compensate for special expenses that an employee might incur by
reason of the nature of his employment – Conveyance Allowance is
in the nature of travelling allowance, the object of which is to enable
the employee to reach his place of work and to defray costs incurred
on travel from his place of residence to his place of work – If instead
of paying the Conveyance Allowance, the employer provided free
transport to the employee, the monetary value of that benefit of
travel from his residence, to his place of work would also not be
regarded as forming part of his wages – The definition of wages in
s.2(22) of the ESI Act clearly excludes Travelling Allowance –
Expression “Travelling Allowance” has not been defined in the ESI
Act – Under s.2(24) of the ESI Act all words and expressions used,
but not defined in the ESI Act shall have the meaning assigned to
them under the Industrial Disputes Act – Travelling Allowance is
also not defined in the Industrial Disputes Act – No provision in the
ESI Act or in the Industrial Disputes Act, which restricts the scope
and ambit of Travelling Allowance – In absence of any definition
or explanation of the expression “Travelling Allowance” in either
of those Acts, the expression has to be construed as per its ordinary
meaning in common parlance – No such difference between
Conveyance Allowance and Travelling Allowance to justify the stand
of the Petitioner Corporation that Conveyance Allowance would
not fall within the ambit of Travelling Allowance – Travelling
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1010
1010
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1011
Allowance includes Conveyance Allowance – Use of the expression
“any travelling allowance” in s.2(22)(b) makes it clear that all kinds
of travelling allowance are excluded from the definition of wages –
No reason why Conveyance Allowance should not be excluded from
the definition of wages – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Words and Phrases – “conveyance” and “travel” – Meaning
of.
Interpretation of Statutes – Rule of construction – In the face
of ambiguity – Held: When there is any ambiguity in any provision,
the Court would ordinarily favour a construction that would be
beneficial to those for whom the legislation is enacted.
Regional Director, Employees State Insurance
Corporation v. M/s IT Solutions (India) Private Limited
ILR 2002 KAR 4019 – overruled.
Wellman (India) (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corporation (1999) 1
SCC 219: [1993] 3  Suppl.  SCR 568; Modella
Woollens Ltd. v. ESI Corporation 1994 Supp (3) SCC
580; and Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, ESI
Corporation (1994) 4 SCC 7 – distinguished.
Management of Oriental Hotels Ltd., Chennai v.
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Chennai 2002
(1) LLJ 14; Regional Director, ESI Corporation v.
Sundaram Clayton Ltd. 2004 (II) LLJ 30 and Regional
Director, ESI Corporation, Thrissur v. Royal Plastics
Industries, Aluva 2015 (2) KLT 64 – affirmed.
Whirlpool of India Limited v. ESI Corporation (2000) 3
SCC 185:[ 2000] 2 SCR  165 – referred to.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, 8th Edition – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 2 SCR 165
referred to
Para 28
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 568
distinguished
Para 29
THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION v.
M/S TEXMO INDUSTRIES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
1994 Supp (3) SCC 580
distinguished
Para 29
(1994) 4 SCC 7
distinguished
Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C.) No.811 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2020 of the High Court
of judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.1527 of 2020.
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Advs. for
the Appellant.
The Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. This Special Leave Petition is against a judgment and order
dated 8th October 2020 passed by the High Court o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.