JUDGMENT : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 16.6.2010, made in W.P.No.25752 of 2004, holding that the conveyance allowance paid to the employees concerned would not come under the definition of 'wages'. The learned single Judge of this Court had relied on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, in REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MADRAS Vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED, MOPPET DIVISION, MADRAS, 2004 (1) L.L.N. 630 and MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL HOTELS LIMITED, CHENNAI Vs. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, CHENNAI, 2002 (I) LLJ 14 , in arriving at his conclusion. 2. Paragraph 3 of the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 16.6.2010, made in W.P.No.25752 of 2004, reads as follows: "3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the conveyance allowance paid to the employees cannot be treated as part of wages so as to calculate the same for the purpose of ESI contribution. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MADRAS Vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED, MOPPET DIVISION, MADRAS, 2004 (1) L.L.N. 630 AND MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL HOTELS LIMITED, CHENNAI Vs. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, CHENNAI, 2002 (I) LLJ 14 ." 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted that the employees had been receiving the traveling allowance, as well as the conveyance allowance, as shown in the traveling expenses account of the ledger concerned. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had also submitted that the conveyance allowance is only an additional remuneration. The conveyance allowance had been paid, separately, under the head of conveyance allowances account and at the time of the payment of wages, every month. Therefore, the payment of the conveyance allowance, to the employees concerned, would come under the definition of 'wages' under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had relied on the decision, in MGMT. OF MAGUS CUSTOMER DIALOG PVT LTD. Vs. DY. DIR., ESIC (2011-III-LLJ-693 (MAD), in support of his contentions. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had relied on the decision, in MGMT. OF MAGUS CUSTOMER DIALOG PVT LTD. Vs. DY. DIR., ESIC (2011-III-LLJ-693 (MAD), in support of his contentions. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the conveyance allowance had been paid to the employees concerned, only as conveyance allowance, as defined under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on the decisions, in MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL HOTELS, LTD Vs. E.S.I. CORPN. (2001 (1) L.L.N.943) and S.GANESAN Vs. REGL. DIRECTOR, E.S.I.C. (2004 (2) L.L.N.1092, in support of his contentions. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the appellant, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that the the matter relates to certain factual disputes as to whether the conveyance allowance paid to the employees concerned are paid, separately, in addition to the traveling allowance paid to them and as to whether it would come under the definition of Section 2(22) of the The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Such disputed factual aspects should be decided by the appropriate court, established under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Hence, we find it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 16.6.2010, made in W.P.No.25752 of 2004. The respondents are permitted to approach the Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation concerned, established under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that it would be open to the appellant, as well as the respondent, to raise all the issues before the Court concerned, in the manner known to law. The writ appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs.