JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Employees State Insurance Court dated 22-10-2001 in ESI No. 61 of 2000. The application before the ESI Court was filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for setting aside the Recovery Notice dated 18-6-1999 claiming an amount of Rs. 69,73,516/-. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a State Government Public Sector Undertaking an establishment covered under the provisions of ESI Act.1 The Central Government by its notification dated 23-12-1996 enhanced the wage ceiling limit from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,500/- with effect from 1-1-1997 for the purpose of covering the employees under the ambit of the ESI Act. As a result, various Trade Unions including the Trade Union of the appellant-establishment filed writ petition challenging the said notification. An interim stay was granted, subject to the management to take an undertaking from the employees who were covered under the Scheme to the effect that the amount of contribution will be recovered in case the interim order is vacated by the High Court. Ultimately in April 1997, the interim stay came to be vacated. Meanwhile, long term wage settlement came to be entered with the Trade Union by the appellant-establishment on 10-3-1997 revising the wages of the employees with retrospective effect from 1-10-1994. 3. A notice came to be issued under Form C-18 by the ESI Corporation claiming contribution for the period covering from 1-1-1997 to 30-9-1997 amounting to Rs. 53,70,118/-. A reply was sent by the appellant contending that by virtue of the settlement, where revision of wages was effected, some of the employees have gone out of the coverage of ESI. Therefore, they asked the Corporation to withdraw the demand. The ESI Corporation said to have proceeded to issue Recovery Notice claiming the amount in question including the interest by its order dated 21-7-1999. The Corporation informed the appellant that the contribution has to be paid on the enhanced rate of wages from 1-1-1997 to 30-9-1997, as the wage settlement came into force from May 1997. It was further informed that the said revision of wages was approved by the Government by its order dated 20-5-1997. The appellant contributed the amounts from 1-1-1997 to 31-3-1997 and approached the ESI Court for setting aside the recovery notice dated 18-6-1999. It was further informed that the said revision of wages was approved by the Government by its order dated 20-5-1997. The appellant contributed the amounts from 1-1-1997 to 31-3-1997 and approached the ESI Court for setting aside the recovery notice dated 18-6-1999. The ESI Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence brought on record held that as on the date of according sanction to the wage settlement in the month of May 1997 and by that time contribution period had already stepped in. Therefore, some contribution continued to be paid till the end of period in accordance with the proviso to Section 2(9) of the Act. Therefore, according to ESI Court, the contribution' period having commenced from 1-4-1997 and it was continued for the next six months period i.e., dated 30-9-1997. Accordingly, it rejected the arguments of the appellant that the status of some of the employees WEIS changed, in view of the approval of the wage revision and they go out of the coverable limit. 4. According to the appellant's Counsel, when the settlement was signed on 10-3-1997 which is a binding settlement setting down terms of employment, only from that day, the settlement comes into effect, therefore" to determine the coverage of each employee based on the gross salary has to be to the wages or salary payable to the employees with effect from 10-3-1997. As many of the employees went out of the coverage as the wage payable became more than Rs. 6,500/- to such employees, the claim made by the Corporation was not justified. They also raised the plea of financial crisis continuously for more than nine years and also the fact that it was declared as sick company. 5. As against this, learned Counsel for the ESI Corporation submits that the actual payment of wages cannot become the criterion if the revision of wages happens to be in the middle of the contribution period. In other words, according to him, when once commencement of contribution period comes into effect, till the end of the contribution period, he continues to be the employee to be covered for ESI benefits if his wages exceeds the limit in the middle of the contribution period. Therefore, he relies on (i) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v Mysore Lamp Works Limited, Bangalore1 and (ii) M/s. Siddeshwar and Company, Hubli v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore and Others. 6. Therefore, he relies on (i) Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v Mysore Lamp Works Limited, Bangalore1 and (ii) M/s. Siddeshwar and Company, Hubli v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore and Others. 6. In Mysore Lamp Works Limited's case, the question that arose was whether the identification of employees for the purpose of payment of contribution has to be made with reference to the wages made or payable. In the said case, by placing reliance on Mohamed Ismail Ansari v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay this Court ultimately concluded that when once the status of an employee at the commencement of the contribution period compels the employer to contribute compulsorily, it shall continue to be so till the end of the contribution period irrespective of enhancement or increase or modification of the wage of the employee in between the commencement and the end of contribution period. Therefore, the status of the employee at the beginning of the commencement period would be the determining factor or criterion for the contribution to be made. Irrespective of his wages exceeding the limit, he would continue to be the employee coverable under the Act till the end of contribution period. Therefore, even if the settlement between the management and the Union came into effect on 10-3-1997, in the present case, the commencement period being 1-3-1997, till the end of September 1997, the employer is bound to contribute the ESI amounts to the Corporation. 7. In the next case relied upon by the Counsel for respondent, i.e., M/s. Siddeshwar and Company's case, this Court held that when once the finding of the concerned authorities are undisputed regarding the status of the employees and the nature of payments made to them were of nature of wages, no appeal lies against such findings as no question of law was involved. 8. In the present case, the appellant-management is not disputing the fact that during commencement of the contribution period, the employees were coming within the ambit of the Act and compulsory contributions had to be made. In view of this admitted fact, question of giving the employer an opportunity of being heard would not arise as the very case of the management is that the settlement between the management and the Union came into effect from 10-3-1997 and till then, they had to cover the employees under the Scheme of the Act. In view of this admitted fact, question of giving the employer an opportunity of being heard would not arise as the very case of the management is that the settlement between the management and the Union came into effect from 10-3-1997 and till then, they had to cover the employees under the Scheme of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention that the management took an undertaking from to employees while granting interim stay by this Court in the batch of writ petitions questioning the notification of enhancing the wage ceiling that in case interim stay is vacated, the amount of contribution will be recovered from the employees. 9. In that view of the matter, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the findings of the ESI Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.