JUDGMENT : Hasan, J. – Assuming that the word 'employee' includes all the employees mentioned in Section 2 (9), yet it is qualified by the expression ‘total wages bill of the employer’ as is obvious from a reading of Section 73 A (3) along with the Explanation to sub-section (4). The intention clearly is that only such employees are included whose names appear in the wage bills of the employer. If the wages are paid by the principal employer the amount paid to them shall be included in computing the contribution to be made. If not then such amount cannot be the basis of calculation. (Para 27) Employees State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1966 (44 of 1966) –if retrospective. Held, that in the absence of any provision that the impost was made applicable from any retrospective date, it must be held that it was prospective and would apply from the date the provisions were enforced. (Para 21) Without going into a detailed discussion of the question, the Court agreed with the view of the High Court that the provisions of special contribution as in Chapter VA of the parent Act was intra vires the Constitution. (para 22) AIR 1976 Pat. 355 – Relied on. Application allowed. JUDGMENT : Hari Lal Agrawal, J. – The Industrial Tribunal, Patna has referred these four cases under section 81 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, acting as Employees Insurance Court containing interalia the following questions of law : Issue No. 1 : Whether the opp. party is empowered to determine and recover the employer’s contribution under Chapter V–A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act in respect of the employees employed by the contractors ? Issue No. 2 : Whether the persons employed by the contractors can be deemed to be the employees of the applicant according to section 2 (9) and (13) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948? Issue No. 5 : Are the provisions of Chapter V-A in violation of the fundamental rights of the applicant particularly in view of the provisions of Articles 14 & 19 M the Constitution of India? Issue No. 6 : Are the provisions of Chapter V-A providing for payment of employer's special contribution Without the benefits provided III Chapter V confiscatory in character ?” Whereas the last two questions are common in all the cases, there is slight difference with regard to the first two questions. Issue No. 6 : Are the provisions of Chapter V-A providing for payment of employer's special contribution Without the benefits provided III Chapter V confiscatory in character ?” Whereas the last two questions are common in all the cases, there is slight difference with regard to the first two questions. The first two questions are in Civil Reference No.2 of 1977. The first question in Reference Nos. 3 and 4 of 1977 which was pressed for our consideration is in the same form as the first question of the first case, but there the question is as to whether the employees of the company working outside the precincts or premises of the factory were covered by the definition of 'employee' under section 2 (9) of the Act. In Reference No. 4 there is yet another question, namely, – “Whether the Amendment Act 44 of 1966 was made applicable with retrospective effect and the opposite party was right in giving effect to the amended definition under section 2 (9) from the period 31.3.1962 ?” The last case concerns the employees of the Tate Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (for short ‘Telco’) working in the head office at Bombay. The question is as to whether such employees were employees within the meaning of section 2 (9) of the Act as amended in the year 1966. 2. Although some other questions have also been referred, learned counsel for both the parties were at one that answer to the aforesaid question duly will be sufficient to clinch the issues between the parties mid the other issues referred were either irrelevant or not necessary to be answered. Learned counsel for all the parties also agreed that if the answer to the first set of questions, i.e., the liability of the company to make contributions for the employees of the contractor and those working outside the premises of the factory as well as in the head office, went in favour of the company, then it was not necessary to decide the last two questions regarding the vires of the Act, and in view of the contentions that were raised at the Bar during the course of the hearing of the cases and the observations made by the Court from time to time, learned counsel for the company (applicants) practically did not address the Court on the vires question. But I may mention that various High Courts including Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Orissa and Madras have held the provision of special contribution to be intra vires, and in the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Fibres & Industries Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and others (A.I.R. 1976 Patna 355) the view of this Court has also gone against the employees. 3. In that view of the matter, I would first proceed to discuss the questions regarding the liability of the applicant companies for the employees of the categories mentioned above in regard to the payment of employer’s contribution. Mr. Govind Das who advanced the main contentions, firstly took us through the scheme of the Act and the various amendments made therein, from time to time. 4. In Reference Nos. 2, 3 and 5 the applicant is Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and in the remaining other case the applicant is Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. having its factory at Jamshedpur and zonal offices and branch sates offices etc. at various places, but the registered head office of both the companies are at 'Bombay. FACTS 5. In Reference No.2 of 1977 the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna, made an application under section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, for recovery of the employer’s special contribution under section 73-D of the Employees State Insurance Act claiming Rs. 8,12,811.00 from the applicant company and its various officers as principal employer of the factory. The stand of the company and its officers was that the company had been paying every year the special Contributions in respect of the ‘employee's’ covered by the Act, and had no liability for such contribution with respect to the employees who were employed by the company’s contractors as they were not the company’s employees within the meaning of section 2 (9) of the Act. This controversy has led to the reference of the first question as already referred to above. 6. This controversy has led to the reference of the first question as already referred to above. 6. In Reference No.3 also the Regional Director of the E.S.I. Corporation addressed a letter dated 24.6.1970 to the company telling it that if the demands made by his earlier letters for the employer's special contribution since January, 1968 in relation to the employees who were working outside the precincts of the factory, were not fulfilled, recovery proceedings would be started with fine and the company took an objection that the provisions of the Act did not apply “to the precincts or premises which are not registered as a factory.” This controversy has led to the reference of a question already referred to earlier. 7. In Reference No. 4 the Regional Director applied to the Collector, Patna under section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act claiming Rs. 2,14,682 as contribution for the years 1962 to 1970 in respect of (a) employees of excluded departments, (b) those of branch offices, and (c) contractor's employees. The company disputed its liability and filed an application under section 73-B read with section 75 of the Act, which has led to the questions in this case, as, already indicated earlier. 8. Similarly in Reference No. 5 the Regional Director demanded inter alia, employer’s special contribution with respect to the employees of the head office of the company, which was disputed by the company by a similar application as mentioned above, leading to the reference of a question to his effect as already indicated heretobefore. 9. For a proper appreciation of the controversy involved in this case it would be useful to notice the purpose of the Act and its scheme. From its preamble itself it is clear that the Act is to provide certain benefits to employees in case of sickness and employment injuries and the like. Therefore, it is a piece of beneficial legislation for the employees and a Corporation known as Employees State Insurance Corporation has been established for administering the provision of the Act with power to administer the fund for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, it is a piece of beneficial legislation for the employees and a Corporation known as Employees State Insurance Corporation has been established for administering the provision of the Act with power to administer the fund for the purposes of the Act. Chapter IV of the Act deals with contributions, Although the provisions of this Chapter undisputedly were not applied to Jamshedpur, in ORDER :to understand the argument it would be necessary to discuss the provisions under this Chapter with reference to Chapter V-A which was introduced later on and made the applicant companies liable for making the employer's special contribution. Section 39 provides for two kinds of contributions (1) the employer's contribution, and (2) the employee's contribution. It also provides for payment of the same to the Corporation according to certain rates and certain units of time. Although two kinds of contributions have been contemplated under section 39 and - two kinds of employers have been contemplated under the scheme of the Act, namely, (1) the principal employer and (2) the immediate employer, both the above types of contributions are to be paid by the principal employer who is entitled to recover the employees contribution from the wage of particular employee or employees as well as from the immediate employer with respect to the contribution made by him relating to the employees employed by or through the immediate employer, by deduction from the wages. Chapter V deals with the benefits to the insured employees. 1n this case, however, we are not concerned with this aspect. 10. In 1951, Act 53 that year amended the Act introducing a new Chapter, Chapter V-A. This was in the nature of transitional provision (which has since been repealed with effect from 1.7.73) which provided that as long as these provision remained in force every employer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, pay to the Corporation a special contribution at such rate as the Central Government may fix, not exceeding five percent of his total wages bill. The special contribution in the case of factories or establishments situated in an area in which the provisions of Chapters IV and V are in force shall be fixed at a rate higher than that in the case of factories or establishments situated in an area in which the provisions of these Chapters are not in force. The special contribution in the case of factories or establishments situated in an area in which the provisions of Chapters IV and V are in force shall be fixed at a rate higher than that in the case of factories or establishments situated in an area in which the provisions of these Chapters are not in force. The special contribution is made recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue (vide section 73-D of the Act.) 11. It would also be relevant to refer to the statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid amending Act. “The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, was passed by the Dominion Legislature in April 1948. It provides for certain benefits to industrial employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury. The Act permits the implementation of the scheme by stages. It was intended that the scheme should be implemented in the first instance in Delhi and Kanpur, but regional implementation of such schemes is always attended with certain practical difficulties. The principal difficulties are the rise in the cost of production and the diminution of the competitive capacity of industries located in those regions. The main objections of the employers centred round the former difficulty and those of the Uttar Pradesh Government emphasized the latter. The Central Government have considered those objections and are anxious to avoid any competitive handicap to any region. This may be best achieved by an equitable distribution of the employers contribution, even where implementation is effected only in certain areas, among the employers in the whole country – employers in regions where the scheme is implemented paying slightly higher contributions. This will minimise the contribution leviable from the employers and spread the incidence of the cost of the scheme suitably. This Bill is primarily intended to achieve this object. Advantage has been taken of this opportunity to effect some other, amendments to the Act which have been found necessary for rectifying, certain defects and removing certain lacunae in the Act. The levy of special contribution was resorted for the purpose of spreading the incidence of the cost of the scheme equitably. This is sought to be achieved by an equitable distribution of the employer's contribution, even when implementation is effected only in certain areas, among the employers in the whole country.” 12. The levy of special contribution was resorted for the purpose of spreading the incidence of the cost of the scheme equitably. This is sought to be achieved by an equitable distribution of the employer's contribution, even when implementation is effected only in certain areas, among the employers in the whole country.” 12. Section 73-A of Chapter V A being the most relevant section, is quoted hereunder : “73-A. Employer’s' special contribution. – (1) For so long as the provisions of this Chapter are in force, every principal employer shall; notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, pay to the Corporation a special contribution (hereinafter referred to as the employer’s special contribution) at the rates specified under sub-section (3). (2) The employer’s special contribution shall, in the case of a factory or establishment situate in any area in which the provisions of both Chapters IV and V are in force, be in lieu of the employer's contribution payable under Chapter IV. (3) The employer's special contribution shall consist of such percentage, not exceeding five per cent of the total wage bill of the employer, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time : Provided that before fixing or varying any such percentage the Central Government shall give by like notification not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do and shall in such notification specify the percentage which it proposes to fix or, as the case may be, the extent to which the percentage already fixed is to be varied : Provided further that the employer's special contribution in the case of factories or establishments situate in any area in which the provisions of both Chapters IV and V are in force shall be fixed at a rate higher than that in the• case of factories or establishments situate in any area in which the provisions of the said Chapters are not in force. (4) The employer's special contribution shall fall due as soon as the liability of the employer to pay wages accrues, but may be paid to the Corporation at such infervals, within such time and in such manner as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, and any such notification may provide for the grant of a rebate for prompt payment of such contribution. Explanation. Explanation. –‘Total wage bill’ in this section means the total wages which have accrued due to employees in a factory or establishment in respect of such wage periods as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” I may also usefully quote section 73-G falling under the same Chapter : “7.3-G. Application of certain provisions of this Act to employer's special contribution. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter, the provisions of Chapter IV, Section 72 and Chapter VII and any rules and regulations made under this Act shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the payment or recovery of employer's special contributions, the penalties specified in connection therewith and all other matters, incidental thereto as they would have applied in relation to an employer’s contribution if this Chapter was not in force and the employer's contribution had been payable under this Act.” In this connection it is also necessary to refer to the definition of the word “employee” in sub-section (9) of section 2 of the Act which reads as follows : “ ‘employee’ means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a fact9ry or establishment to which this Act applies and – (i) who is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere or; (ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or (iii) xx xx xx ” The definition was amended by Act No. 44 of 1966 with effect from 28.1.1968. The legislature has given a wider meaning to the definition of “employee” in this Act than that of a worker under the Factories Act, obviously to extend social security to a larger section of employees and by the 1966 amendment the definition has been further widened so as to bring within its scope even people who were not formerly within the net of the original definition. It is obvious that employees employed in the factory premises would necessarily be employees within the meaning of section 2(9), but at the same time it also must be held, in view of the inclusive definition which was brought in by the amendment, that all such persons employed for wages on any work connected even with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof, including those concerned in the purchase of raw materials and distribution and sale of the finished product of the factory. Question, therefore, arises as to whether this will include within its mischief the employees of the immediate employer also. The Act contemplates two kinds of employers, namely, principal employer [section 2(17)] and immediate employer [section 2(13)]. Principal employer means the owner or occupier of the factory and includes the managing agent etc., and the immediate employer “means a person who has undertaken the execution of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or the establishment of the principal employer...”. In short we can say that this definition relates to the labour contractors. 13. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the basic scheme of contribution as contained in Chapter IV, although throws the burden of making all the contribution of both kinds of employers, i.e. the principal employer and the immediate employer, as well as their employees in the first instance; in the principal employer under the scheme, a right has been conferred of reimbursement from the employees as well as from the immediate employer, in regard to their liability. And thus the ultimate burden of the principal employer has been reduced to his own contribution. On the basis of this provision it was argued by Mr. And thus the ultimate burden of the principal employer has been reduced to his own contribution. On the basis of this provision it was argued by Mr. Das that in absence of such provision in Chapter V-A, the legislature never intended that the scheme of the employer's special contribution was to saddle the principal employer with the liability (if any) of the other set of persons in the same manner and to the same extent as laid down under Chapter IV, as in that case the principal employer was to suffer the loss three times, without any provision for reimbursement. I find substance in the contention. 14. Strong reliance was, however, placed by learned counsel for the Corporation on the expression “in lieu of the employer’s contribution payable under Chapter IV” occurring in sub-section (2) of section 73-A. On the basis of this provision he contended that inasmuch as the employer’s contribution under Chapter IV, as already noticed above, burdened the principal employer with all the contributions of the principal and immediate employers of the principal and immediate employers as well as their employees, when the Parliament used the expression “in lieu of the employer’s contribution payable under Chapter IV” it must be held that it was meant that the scheme of special contribution envisaged the principal employer’s liability for all the contributions. 15. Mr. K.D. Chatterji, who appeared in one of the Reference cases, in my considered opinion, rightly contended that the scheme of sub-section (3) neither contemplated the employers or the employees as such, but it contemplated a special impost at the rate of certain percentage on the wage bill of the employer and it was not a contribution per capita. The wage bill of an employer, the refore, was the basis for levying the demand and the liability of the employer for making the contribution. In other words, the liability was co-related with the liability to pay wages by the employer. Therefore, although the word, “employee” as defined in sub-section (9) of section 2 was wide enough to include the direct and indirect employees of the employer, section 73-A which is the relevant provision for making the employer's special contribution, cannot be given that wide definition and expose the principal employer to that wide obligation as envisaged under the main stream of the contribution provisions contained under Chapter IV. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation. 16. The argument of Mr. Govind Das, however, in this regard was to put a still narrower, construction to this provision namely, that the court should give the transitional meaning to the word “employee” and not its expanded meaning as given to this term by the amending Act of 1966. In other words his endeavour was to apply this provisions of the special contribution only to those employees who were working in the precincts of the factory and not to others. 17. At this stage I may refer to two cases of the Supreme Court which were brought to our notice by Mr. Govind Das – (I), Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. Employees Insurance Court and another (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 356) and (2) Royal. Talkies, Hyderabad and others v. Employees State Insurance Corporation (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1478). In the first case the question was as to whether the employees working, in zonal and branch offices of a factory were covered by the provisions of the Act. That was a case under Chapter IV and rightly, therefore, according to the amendment of the definition of the word “employee”, the employees of the above category were included within the definition. This case is, therefore, of no assistance to us. The other case was also a case for the general contribution under Chapter IV and the question was as to whether the principal owner was liable to pay the contribution for the employees of cycle stand and canteen run by a cinema theatre by contractors. This decision is also similarly distinguishable. Mr. Sahay, however, placed strong reliance upon a full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sen-Raleigh Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and others (A.I.R. 1977 Calcutta 165). In that case the question was as to whether where the bead office (Calcutta) and the factory (Asansol) are situate at different places, the employees of the bead office who are engaged in any type of work specified in section 2(9) of the Act, were employees within the meaning of the Act, particularly when the Act did not apply to Asansol. It was, however, held that the principal employer was liable to pay special contribution for employees 9f both the places. 18. It was, however, held that the principal employer was liable to pay special contribution for employees 9f both the places. 18. It was rightly contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this decision does not give any reason for taking this view, nor there is any other discussion of the relevant facts to apply its principle to the facts of the case before us. I find myself unable to• reconcile with "the view of the Calcutta High Court for the discussions already made about. 19. Two days after the close of the arguments Mr. Sahay filed a list of a large number of cases. Not a single case included in the list of Mr. Sahay has any bearing or relevancy to the points. I have therefore omitted to notice them to avoid the unnecessary bulk of this JUDGMENT :. No authority on this point of any other High Court was cited at the Bar, but from the discussions that I have made above, I come to the irresistible conclusion that the liability for making a special contribution of the principal employer under Chapter V-A must be confined to only those employees who were receiving their wages from the principal employer, i.e., whose salary was included in his ‘wage bill’ wherever they might be serving, whether in, I the factory or, doing any other kind of work outside the precincts of the factory at any other place including any branch or even the head office or in works connected with purchasing of raw materials or distribution or sale of the finished products. Therefore, the extended meaning to the expression “employee” by the amending Act must be given only to this extent as (excluding the employees of the immediate employer) for the purpose of Chapter V-A. The acid test, therefore, should be as to who was responsible for paying the salary or wages of the concerned employees. If the answer is that it was the principal employer then the special contribution must be made by him, if he is not otherwise exempted under the definition clause itself. The aim and object of introduction of this special provision where it said that this was introduced on objections of the employers of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh are as to minimise the competitive handicap to the employees of that region, will be well achieved by this construction of the provision. 20. The aim and object of introduction of this special provision where it said that this was introduced on objections of the employers of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh are as to minimise the competitive handicap to the employees of that region, will be well achieved by this construction of the provision. 20. The answers that I must give to the questions which have been indicated above, will be the applicants are not at all liable for special contribution for the employees of the contractor or, for the matter of that, the contractor's (immediate employer's) contribution. With respect to the employees in the head office, the answer should be that if the salary of such employees is paid by the head office then the applicants are not liable to make the contribution, but simply if any employee posted or working in the head office, or at any other place outside Jamshedpur, draws his salary (wage) from the applicant company, then that event will make the applicants liable for making the special contribution. 21. With respect to the other question as to the Act 44 of 1966 applying with retrospective effect, it must be held that in the absence of any provision that the impost was made applicable from any retrospective date, it was prospective and would apply from the date the provision were enforced. Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation also fairly conced to this proposition. 22. In view of the answers given to the main questions which are substantially in, favour of the applicants, it is not necessary to answer the other question regarding the vires of the provisions contained in Chapter V-A. I have already said of the general understanding at the Bar in this regard and have also briefly indicated the view of the various' other High Courts, including a Bench of this court, on the question of vires. Therefore, I do not deem it necessary to answer the question regarding the vires of the provision. 23. The result of the answers would be that now the Corporation will have to find the actual number of employees who can be covered within the meaning of “employees” in accordance with this decision and the liability of the applicants would depend upon the result of the said Investigation. 23. The result of the answers would be that now the Corporation will have to find the actual number of employees who can be covered within the meaning of “employees” in accordance with this decision and the liability of the applicants would depend upon the result of the said Investigation. S. Shamsul Hasan, J. – I have had the privilege of examining the scholarly and erudite result of my learned Brother Agrawal, efforts and wish to contribute a small drop in the vast lake created by him. 25. Matters referred to this court were, several and required prima facie research into numerous laws and complicated facts, but, after a close analyais it was easy to chisel off the hard surface and bring out the soft core. The references arose because of the challenge raised by the employers to the Corporation's demand of special contribution under Chapter VA of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, (in short, ‘the Act’). The provisions are already available in my learned Brother’s JUDGMENT : and they do not warrant repetition. Suffice it to say that the whole question revolve round the determination of the total amount from which the percentage fixed by the Central Government may be calculated in ORDER :to determine the amount payable as special contribution by the employer. According to the Corporation it will be open to it to calculate the contribution on the basis of the wages paid to the employees, as defined in section 2 (9) of the Act. According to the petitioners, in all the references, i.e., employers’ emoluments of certain categories of the employees must be excluded while computing the contribution to be paid by the employers. Section 2 (9) of the Act defines ‘employee’, the relevant portion of which has already been quoted by my learned Brother, and it sets out several categories of employees. 26. The dispute is really concerned with three categories of the employees; namely, – (i) Those employed by the contractors known as immediate employers for rendering services as required by the principal employers; (ii) Those working outside the factory premises ; and (iii) Those working at the respective head offices. 27. The point involved, in my view, does not need any deep research and merely the interpretation of the expression ‘total wage, bill of the ‘employer’ in sub-section (3) of Section 73A of the Act should be enough to decide the question. 27. The point involved, in my view, does not need any deep research and merely the interpretation of the expression ‘total wage, bill of the ‘employer’ in sub-section (3) of Section 73A of the Act should be enough to decide the question. Significantly, the words ‘payable to the employee’ are missing, The explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 73A has, however, defined the expression ‘total wage bill’ and it states that it is' the total wages which have accrued due to employees in a factory or establishment in respect of such wage periods. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 73 of the Act may again be set out here. “(3) The employer’s special contribution shall consist of such percentage, not exceeding five per cent of the total wage bill of the employer, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time : Provided that before fixing or varying any such percentage the Central Government shall give by like notification not less than two months notice of its intention so to do and shall in such notification specify the percentage which it proposes to fix or, as the case may be the extent to which the -percentage already fixed is to be varied : Provided further that the employer’s special contribution in the case of factories or establishments situate in any area in which the provisions of both Chapters IV and V are in force shall be fixed at a rate higher than that in the case of factories or establishments situate in any area in which the provisions of the said Chapters are not in force. (4) The employer’s special contribution shall fall due as soon as the liability of the employer to pay wages accrues, but may be paid to the Corporation at such intervals, within such time and in such manner as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette; specify and any such notification may provide for the grant of a rebate for prompt payment of such contribution. Explanation – ‘Total wage bill’ in this section means the total wages which have accrued due to employees in a factory or establishment in respect of such wage periods as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.’ Reading the explanation to sub-section (4) of section 73A of the Act one can safely assume that the intention of this Statute is that the word ‘employee’ must be read in sub-section (3) also so as to complete the expression which should then read as total wage bill of the employer payable to employees and it is on the basis of this explanation, perhaps, that the Corporation is raising its claim. In this clause itself, however, the answer to the references appears patent. Assuming that the word ‘employee’ includes all the employees mentioned in section 2 (9) of the Act, yet it is qualified by the expression ‘total wage bill of the employer’. Taking a very simple and uncomplicated meaning of this expression it only intends to convey that such employees are included whose names appear in the wage bill of the employer, subject, of course to the exclusion of the amount of wages that are beyond• the purview of this Act. Category of the employees or their nature of work is immaterial. It is also immaterial whether work is inside the factory or outside the factory or even at the head office or under a contractor. If the wages are paid by the principal employer the amount payable to them shall be included in computing the contribution to be made and if they are not, then such amount cannot be the basis of calculation. 28. The matter on facts will have to be determined before the Tribunal in the light of the principles stated above. The Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, already referred to by my learned Brother, does not help the Corporation because, as I reed it, it does apply to the employees defined under section 2 (9) of the Act and on the facts of the case perhaps the employees of the Head Office were also on the wage list of the factory. 29. Another anomalous situation would be created if the employees serving in the head office and not receiving wages from the factory are included. 29. Another anomalous situation would be created if the employees serving in the head office and not receiving wages from the factory are included. There are many companies with a single office but several factories all over the country. Special contribution payable by each factory will then include the wages paid at the head office by the head office directly in calculating the contribution to be paid by each factory. The result will be that the Corporation will succeed in getting contribution. based on the emoluments paid to the workers of the same head office from each of the factories leading to multiplicity of levy which may render the provision, perhaps, unconstitutional, but, at this stage, this question has not been raised. 30. I am, therefore, in full agreement with the answers given to the points referred to in all the four references by my learned Brother and his JUDGMENT : regarding retrospectivity of the Act and other findings.