Judgment This appeal is directed against order passed in E.I.C. No.98 of 2002 dated 25-11-2005 on the file of Employees’ Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, upholding notice issued by the respondent dated 14-10-2002 vide AP/MEC/52-2007/86 directing the appellant/petitioner to pay Rs.82,000/- deposited by the petitioner towards contributions to the respondent under Section 75 (2B) of the ESI Act with reference to conveyance charges/traveling allowance paid to the employees of the appellant/petitioner. 2. Whereas the appellant is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent in the said case accordingly, they will be referred to before this Court. 3. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 75 (1)(g) of the ESI Act to set aside the notice dated 14-10-2002 issued by the respondent vide AP/MEC/52-2097/81 on the following grounds : It entered into a settlement with its union with regard to the service conditions of its workmen in view of the welfare of its workmen under which it was agreed to pay Leave Travel Concession to its workmen (workers and sub-staff member) to enable them to meet necessary expenditure incurred towards travelling from their residence to the factory at the rate of Rs.150/- per month under the provisions of Wage Settlement whereas it is also claimed that the sub-staff are paid at a fixed rate of Rs.110/- per month. Further, it is not part of their wages as defined in Section 2 (22) of the ESI Act, but, the respondent issued the notice directing to pay the contributions in that behalf which therefore is not tenable. Hence, the petition was filed. 4. The respondents filed counter in which it is mainly averred that its Inspector inspected the records of the petitioner factory on 19-06-2002 and found that the petitioner paid Rs.49,57,965/- towards Leave Travel Advance to its permanent workers and Rs.40,579-85 ps. to its sub-staff without paying the corresponding ESI contribution. Further when the payments were made at a fixed rate it is called as wages within the meaning of Section 2 (22) of the Act. Hence, the notice was issued, but the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner has to pay Rs.3,24,906/- in that regard. Further after hearing the contentions of the petitioner accordingly speaking order was passed under Section 45-A of the Act vide AP/MEC/52-0297-81, dated 14-10-2002 with interest at 15% per annum on the amount claimed. 5. Hence, the notice was issued, but the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner has to pay Rs.3,24,906/- in that regard. Further after hearing the contentions of the petitioner accordingly speaking order was passed under Section 45-A of the Act vide AP/MEC/52-0297-81, dated 14-10-2002 with interest at 15% per annum on the amount claimed. 5. The Tribunal refusing to follow the decisions reported in Management of Oriental Hotels, Ltd v Employees’ State Insurance Corporation 2002 1 LLJ (Mad DB) and depending upon the decisions of the High Court of Karnataka in Regional Director, ESI LLJ (Suppl) 1427 held that the travelling allowance payable to the employees under relevant terms of settlement would form part of their wages and accordingly the petitioner should pay necessary contributions to the respondent while dismissing the petition. 6. The main question involved in the case is as to whether the travelling allowances paid to the employees of the petitioner would form part of their wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the ESI Act and whether the order passed by the Tribunal is proper and sustainable? 7. Section 2(22) of the E.S.I Act contemplates “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 authorised 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 traveling allowance or the value of any traveling 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 the discharge; 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Supreme Court only considered as to whether bonus paid to such employees under terms of settlement would form part of wages as defined by Section 2(22) of the Act and there was no question about its application to travelling allowance paid to them under any terms of settlement and when such a statutory provision is there excluding in clear terms and without any reservations and limitations that travelling allowance payable to them would not come within the ambit of the definition of wages as envisaged, it is nothing but misconception what is rendered by the Karnataka High Court that conveyance allowance which is akin to travelling allowance forms part of wages. It is also contended by him that a scheme was issued by the E.S.I namely E.S.I Scheme of India (Employers Guide) in which illustrated what are to be deemed as wages and what are not to be deemed as wages, while keeping the subject “Pay travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession – conveyance allowance” under the second category and that scheme is being followed with reference to concerned employees and as such it also reiterates that travelling allowance/conveyance allowance should not be excluded from the purview of wages. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that the determining factor here is as to whether the travelling allowance was paid to the employees of the petitioner under any terms of settlement to form part of their wages and it is immaterial as to whether it was actually spent for their conveyance to go to their office or offices and the exclusion of travelling allowance in the provision is only to be limited to the actual amount spent towards their conveyance or travel to reach their office or offices as the case may be and further the scheme referred is only a guide and not a statutory authority and it does not override the precedents referred and the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court properly considered the matter and the Tribunal arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 10. 10. In Wellman (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employees’ State Insurance Corporation reported in AIR 1994 SC 1037 , the Supreme Court considered as to whether bonus payable to the employees of the appellants therein under terms of settlement reached in conciliation under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would form part of their wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act and observed “The expression “other additional remuneration, if any, paid……” in the second part of definition of wages given in S.2(22) implies that the said remuneration is not payable under any contract of employment, express or implied. This is so because while the first part of the definition refers to remuneration under the contract of employment, the second part does not refer to remuneration under any such contract. Secondly, the definition is inclusive and includes only such payments outside the contract as are mentioned in its second part and none other. Thirdly, the expression “if any, paid” after the words “other additional remuneration” will be inconsistent if the remuneration is payable under the contract of employment since such payment is not dependent on the will of the employer but on the fulfillment of the terms of the contract. Lastly, the second part of the definition includes only such contractual payments as are specifically mentioned therein. Hence the expression “other additional remuneration, if any, paid” not only does not refer to remuneration payable under any contract but refers to such remuneration which is payable at the will of the employer. Every remuneration that is payable under the contract would, therefore, fall under the first part of the definition.” In ModellaWoollens Ltd. Vs Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and another also similar view was taken with reference to the question of bonus forming part of wages. 11. In Regional Director, ESI Corporation vs. IT Solutions (India) Pvt. Limited, the Karnataka High Court held : A careful reading of Section 2 (22) of the Act would show that all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee in terms of the contract of employment whether it is express or implied are wages within the meaning of the said expression. That payments made by the management under a settlement with the employees would constitute payments made under the contract of employment is fairly well settled by the decisions of the supreme court in Wellman (india) Pvt. Ltd., v. Employees State Insurance SCC 580: 2001-iii-llj (suppl)-1427. To the same effect is the decision of this court in Escorts Limited and another v. Regional Director, ESI corporation m.f.a No.5626/1998 cav 1339/1999 dated December 17,2003. If that be so, as it indeed is the payment of conveyance allowance made in terms of the contract of employment or the settlement would be a wage under Section 2(22) of the act especially when such payment is made to all the employees and regardless whether they are using any conveyance and if they are the type of conveyance which they are using. The corporation has in our opinion rightly came to the conclusion after review of the facts and a proper appreciation of the pronouncements of the supreme court and those of this court that conveyance allowance is different from travelling allowance or travelling concession referred to in clause (b) of Section 2(22) of the act. Travelling allowance referred to in clause (b) is a payment meant to defray specific expenses incurred by the employees by reason of the nature of employment and May include any allowance paid or reimbursed to any employee for specific duty related journey. It May also include reimbursement of actual cost of journey subject to proof of actual expenditure. Payment of conveyance allowance on a uniform basis regardless whether the employee concerned has or has not incurred any expenditure on his journey to a place of his work is not however synonymous to travelling allowances as is envisaged under clause (b) of Section 2(22). 12. In the other decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court similar view was taken with reference to conveyance allowance. 13. Significantly the Karnataka High Court making a distinction between conveyance allowance and travelling allowance found that they are not synonymous to each other while bringing conveyance allowance with in the ambit of the definition of Wages as envisaged in Section 2 (22) of the Act. 13. Significantly the Karnataka High Court making a distinction between conveyance allowance and travelling allowance found that they are not synonymous to each other while bringing conveyance allowance with in the ambit of the definition of Wages as envisaged in Section 2 (22) of the Act. It infers the assessment of Karnataka High Court that travelling allowance excluded from the definition of wages should not be taken as part of wages irrespective of whether it was paid under certain terms of settlement between the management and its employees. In any case, I am in disagreement with the distinction so made that conveyance allowance is not synonymous to traveling allowance because, both travelling allowance and conveyance allowance are with reference to mode of transportation only. 14. In Management of Oriental Hotels, Lt v Employees’ State Insurance Corporation 2002 1 LLJ 14 (Mad DB)– a question arose as to whether conveyance allowance payable to employees under similar circumstances would form part of wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the act and it is rightly held therein. “In so far as the conveyance allowance is concerned, even though it forms part of the wages being the amount payable in terms of the contract of employment, having regard to the settlement and even de hors the settlement, the payment of the amount would fall within the ambit of ‘additional remuneration’. Nevertheless, that amount will have to be excluded having regard to the specific exclusion provided in the definition itself for travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession. The conveyance allowance paid is in the nature of travelling allowance as the objection of that payment is to enable the employee to reach his place of work and to defray a part of the cost incurred on the travel from his place of residence to the place of work. If instead of paying the conveyance allowance, the employer had provided free transport to the employees, the monetary value of that benefit of free travel from his residence to the place of work would not have been capable of being regarded as forming part of the wages. If instead of paying the conveyance allowance, the employer had provided free transport to the employees, the monetary value of that benefit of free travel from his residence to the place of work would not have been capable of being regarded as forming part of the wages. The conveyance allowance paid in cash for the purpose of being utilized on the travel from place of residence to the place of work, is of the same character and there is no reason why it should not be regarded as travelling allowance for the purpose of Section 2(22)(b) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act”. 15. Further the inclusion of bonus paid to such employees within the definition of wages by the Supreme Court of India is also quite different from bringing travelling allowance within its ambit whether it was made under any terms of settlement or not. Had the Supreme Court considered the question of including travelling allowance within the definition of wages paid to the employees under certain terms of settlement and answered it affirmatively then a different interpretation is possible. Further when the statute without any ambiguity and without any restrictions or limitations excludes travelling allowance from the definition of wages in other words, when the exclusion of it is complete any attempt to draw different inference is not permissible. 16. Ultimately what Karnataka High Court held is not referable or applicable to the circumstances of this Case. 17. In addition to that, the ESI Scheme of India (Employees Guide) appears to have been implemented with regards to the service conditions of employees covered by the Act and hence it is to be followed by the concerned management unless it is not against any statutory provisions. When the travelling allowance is excluded to form part of the wages which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 2(22) of the Act it emphasizes what the intention of the Employees State Insurance Corporation was in introducing it. It must have been so done because of the corresponding exclusion clause incorporated in the provision. Hence the claim of the respondent is not tenable. Further therefore the Tribunal failed to consider the matter properly. 18. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal upholding the notice issued by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay the contributions are held to be invalid upholding the claim of the petitioner. Hence the claim of the respondent is not tenable. Further therefore the Tribunal failed to consider the matter properly. 18. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal upholding the notice issued by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay the contributions are held to be invalid upholding the claim of the petitioner. In the result the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as prayed for declaring that the notice is invalid with costs.