JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—By this judgment five appeals, being FAO Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 1996, are being disposed of since similar questions arise for determination in all these appeals. 2. All these cases arise out of the proceedings under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The appellant Mohan Meakin is admittedly an industrial establishment. It has a brewery at Solan. Two questions which are common to all the five appeals are whether the amount paid by the appellant to the contractors, who have been given the job of washing of empty bottles and packing the same, is to be considered as wages and ESI contribution paid on it; and whether the appellant is liable to pay the ESI contribution on the wages paid to the casual employees? 3. In FAO Nos. 7, 9 and 11 of 1996, a question has been raised as to whether the amount paid as stipend to apprentices is to be considered as wages paid to employees and whether ESI contribution is to be paid on this amount? 4. In FAO Nos. 8 and 9 of 1996, the question which has been raised is whether the amount paid to the employees on account of efficiency award is to be considered as part of the wages or not for calculating the ESI contribution? 5. Lastly, in FAO No. 9 of 1996, the question has been raised, whether the employer is liable to pay ESI contribution on the salary paid to the staff of the Mohan Middle School? 6. In all these cases, the authorities under the Act had called upon the appellant to furnish certain documents and, not being satisfied, had directed the employer to make contribution with regard to the payment made to the contractors, payment made to casual workers, payment made to the apprentices, payments made on account of efficiency award and the salary paid to the staff of the Mohan Middle School. 7. These orders related to different years. These notices were challenged by the appellant before the ESI Court, Himachal Pradesh. The Court has granted some benefit to the appellant but has rejected the remaining portion of their claims. The ESI Court has held that the appellant is liable to pay contribution on the entire amount paid to the contractors. 7. These orders related to different years. These notices were challenged by the appellant before the ESI Court, Himachal Pradesh. The Court has granted some benefit to the appellant but has rejected the remaining portion of their claims. The ESI Court has held that the appellant is liable to pay contribution on the entire amount paid to the contractors. It has also held the appellant liable to pay contribution under the ESI Act on the amount paid to the casual workers. With regard to the apprentices, the ESI Court has held that the appellant is not liable to pay the ESI contribution on the amounts paid to the apprentice. However, it has held that the amount shown by the appellants as having been paid to the apprentices has actually not been paid and accordingly has given only partial relief to the establishment. With regard to the contribution on account of efficiency award, the claim of the appellant has been rejected. The appellant was also directed to pay the contribution with regard to the salaries paid to the employees of the Mohan Middle School. 8. I have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant; and Mr. S.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. Mr. K.D. Sood has urged that the approach of the ESI Court was totally flawed. He has raised the following questions: (i) Whether payments made to a job-work contractor falls within the ambit of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act and wages within the ambit of Section 2(22) of the Act and the employer is liable to pay ESI contribution under the Act? (ii) Whether the employer is liable to pay ESI contribution on wages paid to casual workers? (iii) Whether the employer is liable to pay ESI contribution on the amount of stipend paid to the apprentices? (iv) Whether the employer is liable to pay ESI contribution on the amount paid as efficiency award to its employees? (v) Whether the appellant is liable to pay ESI contribution on the amount paid as salary to the staff of Mohan Middle School, which is managed by a separate Managing Committee and has no connection with the appellant? 10. Before dealing with these questions, it would be apposite to refer to some provisions of the Act as it stood prior to 1984 since all the cases relate to the period prior to 1984. 11. 10. Before dealing with these questions, it would be apposite to refer to some provisions of the Act as it stood prior to 1984 since all the cases relate to the period prior to 1984. 11. Section 2(9) of the Act defines "employee" as follows: "2(9) "employee" means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory 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 employees 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) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service; [and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment; but does not include—] (a) any member of [the Indian] naval, military or air forces; or (b) any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed [one thousand rupees] as month: Provided that an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed [one thousand rupees] a month at any time after (and not before) the beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period. 2(13) "immediate employer", in relation to employees employed by or through him, means a person who has undertaken the execution, on the premises of a factory or an establishment to which this Act applies or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent, of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment of the principal employer or is preliminary to the work carried on in, or incidental to the purpose of, any such factory or establishment, and includes a person by whom the services of an employee who has entered into a contract of service with him are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer. 2(17) "principal employer" means— (i) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and includes the managing agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under [the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)], the person so named; (ii) in any establishment under the control of any department of any Government in India, the authority appointed by such Government in this behalf or where no authority is so appointed the head of the Department; (iii) in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment. 2(22) "wages" means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled and includes [any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorized leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or lay-off and] other additional remuneration, if any [paid at intervals not exceeding two months] but does not include— (a) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund, or under this Act; (b) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession; (c) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or (d) any gratuity payable on discharge." 12. Section 44 enjoins that every principal and immediate employer shall furnish returns and maintain registers with regard to all persons employed in any factory or establishment. Section 44 enjoins that every principal and immediate employer shall furnish returns and maintain registers with regard to all persons employed in any factory or establishment. Section 45 empowers the Inspectors of the Corporation to inspect and ask for the records from any principal or immediate employer and such records are to be made available by the employers to the Inspectors. Section 45-A provides that when in any factory or establishment, no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted in terms of Section 44 then any other official of the Corporation may, on the basis of information available to it, by order determine the amount of contribution payable. An order made by the Corporation under this Section is deemed to be sufficient proof of the claim of the Corporation and the same can be recovered under Section 45-B. 13. It is in the light of the aforesaid provisions that the various contentions have to be considered. 14. Mr. K.D. Sood has placed great reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court, reported in 1989 (1) K.L.T. 333, titled as ST. Reddiar & Sons v. Regional Director. The Kerala High Court has observed as follows: "It is true that in a case where a person claims exemption from a statutory provision, it is for him to prove that he is entitled to such exemption. But in a case where a demand which is made under a statute is challenged that demand has to be justified by the authority which imposes, demands or collects the amount. The contribution is on the wages and the corporation which demands contribution has to make out, in all cases where the employer disputes this liability, that such amounts were remuneration paid or payable on fulfillment of the contract of employment, whether express or implied." 15. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Sharma, cited AIR 1980 Karnataka 86, titled as Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. M/s. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., wherein a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court held as follows: "Where, in cases to which provisions of Section 45-A are attracted, the Corporation by an order made in accordance with that Section determines the amount of contributions payable and that claim is disputed by the employer, it would not be necessary for the Corporation to seek a resolution of that dispute before the Insurance Court. Such a claim is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. If the employer disputes the claim it is for him to move the Insurance Court for relief." 16. Mr. S.R. Sharma further submits that in view of the provisions of Section 2(13) and Sections 44, 45 and 45-A of the Act, quoted above, if the occupier or employer or establishment fails to provide the records which it is supposed to maintain then the burden can never be placed on the Corporation and the burden shall always be on the employer to prove that the order passed by the Corporation is illegal and liabie to be set aside. 17. In the Kerala High Court, the question which arose for consideration was whether the payment of a gratuitous nature made to the employees fell within the meaning of the term "wages". It is in this context that the Kerala High Court made its observations. 18. In my view, the burden of proof looses its significance when the parties are aware of the nature of the dispute and have led evidence on all aspects. Admittedly, both the sides were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence. Once the Inspector issues notice to the employer to produce some documents and the employer does not produce the documents, how can the Corporation be expected to prove its case? The employer is bound to give the basic information and it is only if the principal and immediate employer furnish all the requisite documents and then the question arises as to whether a particular payment falls within the definition of "wages" or not, then the onus may shift upon the Corporation. 19. The first question to be considered in the present case is with regard to the payments made to the contractor. In this case, two contractors are involved. The appellant has given the work of washing of bottles to one contractor and the work of packing of the bottles in the cartons to another contractor. The question which is raised is whether the amount paid to the contractor can be termed as wages and should be taken into consideration for assessing the ESI contribution to be made by the employer or not. 20. Mr. Sood submits that the employees of the contractor are not the employees of the appellant. The question which is raised is whether the amount paid to the contractor can be termed as wages and should be taken into consideration for assessing the ESI contribution to be made by the employer or not. 20. Mr. Sood submits that the employees of the contractor are not the employees of the appellant. He further submits that these employees do not work under the supervision of the appellant and, as such, cannot be termed its employees. In the alternative, he submits that in terms of Ext.PW-3/A when payment is made to a contractor then only 25 per cent of the payment has to be taken into consideration as wages of the employees. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 1992 SC 573, titled as C.E.S.C. Limited, etc. v. Subhash Chandra Bose and others. In this case, the principal employer had given a contract for laying of cables to a contractor. The question arose whether the principle employer was liable to pay ESI contribution for the wages paid by the contractor to his labourers. The Apex Court in the facts of the said case held as follows : "When the employee is put to work under the eye and gaze of the principal employer, or his agent, where he can be watched secretly, accidentally, or occasionally, while the work is in progress, so as to scrutinize the quality thereof and to detect faults therein, as also put to timely remedial measures, by directions given, finally leading to the satisfactory completion and acceptance of the work, that would be supervision for the purpose of Section 2(9). It is the consistency of vigil, the proverbial a stich in time saves nine. The standards of vigil would of course depend on the facts of each case. Now this function, the principal employer, no doubt, can delegate to his agent who in the eye of law is his second self, i.e., a substitute of the principal employer. Where a Corporation, principal employer, engaged various electrical contractors who were otherwise licensees under the Electricity Act and the Rules to carry out sophisticated work of excavation, conversion of overhead electric lines and laying of underground cables under public roads, as well as for repair and maintenance of the aforesaid works. Where a Corporation, principal employer, engaged various electrical contractors who were otherwise licensees under the Electricity Act and the Rules to carry out sophisticated work of excavation, conversion of overhead electric lines and laying of underground cables under public roads, as well as for repair and maintenance of the aforesaid works. On the condition in the contract between the Corporation, principal employer and the contractor, immediate employer, that the latter will have to provide competent supervision while the work progresses, in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Rules, 1956, the employees appointed by the Contractors, immediate employers would not become the employees under the contractor, i.e. the principal employer when the work done by the employees was under the exclusive supervision of the electrical contractors or competent supervisors engaged by them under the terms of the contract and the licence and the Rules obligated contractors to take in their services a person holding a valid certificate of competency under whose direct supervision the work was required to be carried out, and on completion its final report being first signed by the supervisor supervising the work and then countersigned by the holder of the licence, who will be responsible for the due execution of the work. In such case the immediate employer could not be termed as agents of the principal employer. Further, the work was to be checked by the principal employer on completion would not make any difference. Checking of work after the same is completed and supervision of work while in progress is not the same. These have different perceptions. Checking of work on its completion is an activity, the purpose of which is to finally accept or reject the work, on the touchstone of job specifications." 21. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment is not at all applicable to the present case. In the case before the Apex Court, the work was of a highly sophisticated nature. The work was to be done outside the factory premises. There was no supervision of the principal employer. In the present case, the two contracts were only of washing of bottles and for packing the same. Both these jobs were being done in the factory itself. A person, who is employed through an immediate employer and works in the premises of the factory, is an employee. In such a case, even supervision is not required. In the present case, the two contracts were only of washing of bottles and for packing the same. Both these jobs were being done in the factory itself. A person, who is employed through an immediate employer and works in the premises of the factory, is an employee. In such a case, even supervision is not required. In the present case, admittedly, the work of washing of bottles and packing the same is done within the premises of the factory. It is simple work not requiring any supervision. The element of supervision, in such cases, has to be nil and only the end-product has to be seen. What the employer has to see is whether the bottles have been washed properly and whether they have been packed properly. Since the work is being done in the premises of the principal employer, he can always check how the same is being performed. 22. The Apex Court in 1978 LAB. 1.C. 1245, Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and others v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, while dealing with Section 2(9) of the Code, has held as follows : "The language used in Section 2 (9) (ii), however is extensive and diffusive imaginatively embracing all possible alternatives of employment by or through an independent employer. In such cases, the principal employer has no direct employment relationship since the immediate employer of the employee concerned in some one else. Even so, such an employee, if he works (a) on the premises of the establishment, or (b) under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent "on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the establishment", qualifies under Section 2 (9) (ii)." 23. A similar view has been taken in 1981 LAB. I.C. 237, titled as Regional Director of E.S.L Corporation v. RK. Jacob, 1985 LAB. I.C. 1181, titled as All India Reporter Ltd., Nagpur v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and 1987 LAB. I.C. 878, titled as The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation. 24. It has been consistently held that once it is proved that where an employee directly or through an immediate employer is working in the premises then it is not necessary that he should be under the supervision of the principal employer. 25. Mr. I.C. 878, titled as The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation. 24. It has been consistently held that once it is proved that where an employee directly or through an immediate employer is working in the premises then it is not necessary that he should be under the supervision of the principal employer. 25. Mr. Sood has contended that the Corporation has issued some instructions in which it has been held that even if no records are being maintained only 25 per cent of the amount paid to the contractor should be treated as wages and only on this amount the insurance contribution has to be paid by the employer. I cannot accept this contention. This clarification of the ESI Corporation relates to payment to contractors where the total bill of contractors would be in the case of repairs to buildings, machineries and maintenance. In the present case, the contractors were not doing any repair work. In cases of contracts relating to works of repairs to buildings, machinery and maintenance, a large portion of the amount paid to the contractor may be used for the construction material or replacement of the parts of the machinery etc. On the other hand, in the present case, we are concerned only with contracts relating to washing of bottles and packing of the same. There are virtually no inputs except washing powder, caustic soda, etc. in case of washing of bottles and straw etc. for packing of bottles. Neither the contractor, who is the immediate employer nor the principal employer, have produced any record whatsoever to show as to what amount was being spent on material inputs and what amount was for wages. Since they have failed to maintain any accounts, they cannot be given any benefit for the value of material inputs. The contention of the appellant is rejected and it is held liable to pay ESI contribution on the total amount paid to the contractors. 26. The next question is with regard to the wages paid to the casual workers. Since they have failed to maintain any accounts, they cannot be given any benefit for the value of material inputs. The contention of the appellant is rejected and it is held liable to pay ESI contribution on the total amount paid to the contractors. 26. The next question is with regard to the wages paid to the casual workers. So far as this question is concerned, the same stands decided by the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1986 SC 1686, titled as Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Sough India Flour Mills (P) Ltd., wherein it has been clearly held that casual employees are also employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act and come within the purview of the Act. In view of this decision, the contention of the appellant is rejected and it is held that the appellant is liable to pay contribution on the amount paid as wages to the casual employees. 27. The third point is with regard to the stipend paid to the apprentices. Mr. S.R. Sharma has fairly considered that at the relevant time the amount paid to the apprentices was not covered and the employer was not liable to make any ESI contribution on the amounts paid to the apprentices. Before the ESI Court also the respondent had taken the same plea. The ESI Court has, however, come to the conclusion that the appellant had over inflated its claim with regard to the amount paid as stipend to the apprentices and, therefore, it has restricted the benefit to certain amounts only. 28. Mr. Sood contends that the ESI Court has erred in not granting the entire benefit claimed by the appellant. He submits that the claimants have filed the copies of the apprenticeship contracts and have also filed detailed statements showing the amounts paid to the apprentices. According to him, there is no reason to disbelieve these statements. 29. I have gone through the evidence in each case. I find that in all the apprenticeship contracts there are overwriting, which have not been initialed by any person, with regard to the amounts to be paid to the apprentices. The appellant has failed to produce the original or certified copies of the cash-books or the ledger to show what amount was actually paid to the apprentices. I find that in all the apprenticeship contracts there are overwriting, which have not been initialed by any person, with regard to the amounts to be paid to the apprentices. The appellant has failed to produce the original or certified copies of the cash-books or the ledger to show what amount was actually paid to the apprentices. The appellant has only produced some tabulation of the stipend paid without giving any details as to from where these statements have been prepared. The appellant is a registered company duly incorporated under the Company Act. All its accounts are audited. Obviously, the appellant could have produced the original accounts or atleast certified copies thereof to show what was the amount paid to the apprentices. Since they have failed to produce the original accounts adverse inference has to be drawn against them. The contention of the appellant is, therefore, rejected and the judgment of the ESI Court is upheld. 30. The next question raised by the appellant is with regard to payment of ESI contribution on efficiency award given to the employees. The contention of Mr. Sood is that with regard to all the employees, who were paid efficiency awards, the maximum amount payable by way of weekly ESI contribution under the Act was already being contributed. Therefore, even if the additional amount paid as efficiency award is added to the pay it will not make any difference since the ESI contribution was being made at the maximum of the scale. 31. I have gone through the documents, which have been proved on records, which clearly show that with regard to all the employees, the contribution was being made at the maximum of the scale. The maximum contribution at the relevant time was Rs. 3.75p per week. I find that either Rs. 15/- or Rs. 18.75p as contribution for 4/5 weeks has been paid with regard to all the employees. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is accepted and it is held that it is not liable to pay any further contribution on the amount paid as efficiency award to the employees. 32. The last question, which has been raised, is whether ESI contribution is to be paid on the salary paid to the school staff of the Mohan Middle School. 32. The last question, which has been raised, is whether ESI contribution is to be paid on the salary paid to the school staff of the Mohan Middle School. This Court has already held in FAO No. 124 of 2003, titled as ESI Corporation v. Mohan Meakin, between the same parties, that the Mohan Middle School is a separate entity and that the employees of the said School are not the employees of the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is accepted and it is not liable to pay ESI contribution on the salary paid to the staff of the Mohan Middle School. 33. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly by holding as under: (i) the appellant is liable to pay ESI contribution on the entire amount paid to the contractors; (ii) the appellant is liable to pay ESI contribution on the amount paid to the casual employees; (iii) the appellant is not liable to pay ESI contribution on the stipend paid to the apprentices. However, the calculations in this regard made by the ESI Court are accepted; (iv) the appellant is not liable to pay any additional amount of ESI contribution on the amount paid as efficiency award to the employees since the contribution with regard to the employees was being paid at the maximum of the scale; and (v) the appellant is not liable to pay ESI contribution on the salary paid to the staff of Mohan Middle School. 34. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.