Judgment :- 1. Petitioner in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 83/1985 and 86/1985 on the file of the District Judge (E.S.I. Judge) Coimbatore, are the appellants. 2. The petitioner and the respondent in the O.Ps are the same persons and their case is also the same and it is as follows: The petitioner is a public limited company in the manufacture and sale of rayon and wood pulp. Contributions under the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) are being regularly remitted in accordance with the Act. The Insurance Inspector visited the factory and pointed out short payments of contributions amounting to Rs. 54,235-30 for the period from 1/1974 to 1/1977 and a sum of Rs. 29,291/- for the period from 5/1977 to 5/1978. The petitioner was requested to comply with the demand within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. No contribution is payable for the above period, since the claim is made in respect of payments of overtime wages, night shift allowances and incentive bonus. These payments are not wages or remuneration for the work done. They are entitled to help the workmen. The work depends on the exigencies and is given at the discretion of the employer. No contribution is therefore due on these items. The respondent has not taken any steps for proper determination of the contributions by initiating proceedings under Section 45-A of the Act. Initiation of Revenue proceedings is therefore, unnecessary and is liable to be set aside. Hence the petitions. 3. The respondents in their counter statements contend as follows: The petitioner-factory has been periodically inspected by Inspectors of the respondent. Orders were passed claiming contribution for the workers regarding payment of overtime wages, night shift allowance and incentives paid to them. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon them to pay the contributions, on the basis of the wages paid to them. They have not availed the opportunity and submitted any explanation. Hence orders were passed determining the amount due by way of contributions. The payment of these amounts cannot be stated as not coming under S. 2(22) of the Act as wages. The petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. They have not availed the opportunity and submitted any explanation. Hence orders were passed determining the amount due by way of contributions. The payment of these amounts cannot be stated as not coming under S. 2(22) of the Act as wages. The petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, a common enquiry was held and the learned E.S.I. judge gave a finding that payments made to workers as overtime allowances, night shift allowances and incentives are to be considered as wages and the order passed by the Authorities is correct and dismissed the petitions. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner in both the cases have come forward with these two appeals. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the payment of allowances under the headings “over-time allowances, night shift allowances and incentive to the workers” during the relevant period. But, he would contend that there was no proper opportunity given to him to show that these payments do not come under the definition of the word “wages” provided under S. 2(22) of the Act and therefore, the matter may be remitted to the Corporation with a direction to the Corporation to issue a notice under S. 45-A of the Act and give an opportunity to the appellants to put forward their case. The learned counsel would also argue that the appellant was paying contributions for these payments made regularly upto 1978 and the claim for payment of contribution for the relevant period viz., January 1974 to January 1977 and May 1977 to May 1978 has been made only in the year 1985 and an opportunity has therefore to be provided to the appellant to put forward their case as per the proviso to Section 45-A of the Act. 7. The Personnel Manager of the petitioner has been examined as P.W. I and he has stated that the payment of these allowances were made to the workers over and above their salary. He has also admitted that the respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to make contribution made to the insurance alone and bringing it to the notice of the petitioner that during the relevant period these amounts were omitted to be taken into account. Ex. A-4 is one such communication. There was no reply. He has also admitted that the respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to make contribution made to the insurance alone and bringing it to the notice of the petitioner that during the relevant period these amounts were omitted to be taken into account. Ex. A-4 is one such communication. There was no reply. The petitioner does not dispute the correctness of the figure mentioned in Ex-A-4 and there cannot be any doubt that these amounts were taken from the Registers and records of the petitioner factory by the Inspector who had visited the premises. When the petitioner has been called upon to make remittance by issuing a notice under Ex. A-4, and the petitioner has not replied to it, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant that an opportunity may be given to them to put forward their case cannot be appreciated. From the order of the E.S.I. judge, it is seen that the petitioners have taken a stand before the learned judge that it is the duty of the E.S.I. Corporation to refer the matter to the Insurance Court when an objection has been raised by the establishment, calling upon the establishment to make payment. This contention has been negatived by the E.S.I. Judge holding that it is the duty of the establishment to refer the matter to the Insurance Court and it is not the duty of the E.S.I. Corporation to make a reference to the Insurance Court when any objection is raised. Further, in the case on hand, to a notice under Ex. A-4, the establishment has not sent any reply at all. Therefore, it cannot be stated that they have raised any objection at all. It is only after Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated, they have come forward with the O.P.s, before the learned E.S.I. Judge contending that the payment made towards night shift allowances, incentive allowances and overtime allowance in addition to the wages of the worker cannot be considered as wages. It is only after Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated, they have come forward with the O.P.s, before the learned E.S.I. Judge contending that the payment made towards night shift allowances, incentive allowances and overtime allowance in addition to the wages of the worker cannot be considered as wages. But, this stand taken by the appellant has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation (A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1680) wherein their Lordships have held that wages as defined under S. 2(22) includes remuneration paid or payable under the terms of the contract of employment, expressed or implied but further extends to other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months, though outside the terms of employment. The Supreme Court has categorically held that on the interpretation of the word “wages” defined in S. 2(22) of the Act, “wages” must necessarily include house rent allowances, night shift allowance, heat, gas and dress allowances and incentive allowances. The payment of allowances made under these headings are outside the contract of employment and that are paid at intervals not exceeding two months. Therefore, the learned E.S.I. Judge has rightly held that the petitioners cannot contend that the payments made towards over-time allowances, night shift allowances and incentive allowance do not come under the definition of the word “wages” as defined under S. 2( 22) of the Act and has rightly dismissed the petitions. There alone, I am of opinion that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result the appeals are dismissed. No costs.