JUDGMENT : P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed u/s 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, against the order of the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai dated 28.03.2008 made in E.I.O.P. No. 23 of 2001. The Deputy Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 in his proceedings TN/INS/51 dated 13.08.1991, passed an order u/s 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 determining a total sum of Rs. 16,873.14 under various heads, subdivided into Items 1 to 9, as contribution to be paid by the respondent to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The said order came to be challenged by the establishment, namely the respondent herein before the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai in E.I.O.P. No. 54 of 1991 u/s 75 of the Employees Insurance Act. The learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court held that the levy of contribution under Items 4, 5, 8-A and 8-B was not valid and accordingly set aside the order of the Deputy Regional Director of Employees Insurance Corporation dated 13.08.1991 determining contribution in respect of the above said items alone, while upholding the determination of contribution under all other Items. The order of the Employees Insurance Court setting aside the determination of contribution under Items 4, 5, 8-A and 8-B is challenged by the employees State Insurance Corporation in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred u/s 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act. 2. Admittedly, LEDTEX Products Limited having its establishment at 182/1, Lake View Road, West Mambalam, Chennai-33 is a factory/establishment coming under the purview of the Employees State Insurance Act and it has been assigned a Code No. 51-19258-21 under the Employees State Insurance Act for payment of contribution. Stating that the employer in relation to the said factory failed to pay contribution as required by law, a notice under Form C-18 came to be issued to the respondent vide letter of the Office of the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation bearing Letter No. TN/Ins.1/51-19256-2 dated 19.12.1990 to show-cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why contribution as per the statement annexed to the said show-cause notice should not be recovered from the respondent. The said notice came to be issued based on verification of the records of the factory made by the Insurance Inspector on 25.01.1990. The said notice came to be issued based on verification of the records of the factory made by the Insurance Inspector on 25.01.1990. The representative of the respondent by name N. Ramkumar was given personal hearing and after such personal hearing, the contribution omitted to be paid by the respondent was determined under the impugned order of the Deputy Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, dated 13.08.1991. The challenge made by the respondent herein before the Employees Insurance Court, Chennai proved to be partially successful as the said order of the Deputy Regional Director of Employees Insurance Corporation came to be set aside in respect of 4 items alone while confirming the levy of contribution in respect of other items. The present appeal has been filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order of the Employees Insurance Court dated 28.03.2008 made in E.I.O.P. No. 23 of 2001 so far as it relates to levy of contribution in respect of Items 4, 5, 8-A and 8-B are concerned on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. 3. Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. Though the appellant has incorporated in the grounds of appeal two questions as substantial questions of law involved in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the appeal came to be admitted on 12.07.2010, this Court did not identify and formulate the substantial questions of law on which the appeal was admitted. However, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said irregularity can be cured by identifying the substantial questions of law involved in the appeal and this Court can proceed with the disposal of the appeal based on such identification. 4. The controversy between the appellant and the respondent has arisen regarding the levy of contribution in respect of job works entrusted to the contractors on the ground that the respondent herein was the Principal Employer liable to pay contribution for the workers engaged by the contractors as immediate employers. 4. The controversy between the appellant and the respondent has arisen regarding the levy of contribution in respect of job works entrusted to the contractors on the ground that the respondent herein was the Principal Employer liable to pay contribution for the workers engaged by the contractors as immediate employers. A farther controversy has also arisen as to whether the amount paid towards Employees Welfare Fund to defray the expenses of supply of coffee/tea to the employees during duty hours can be termed part of the wages on which contribution can be levied. Therefore, the following alone can be identified as substantial questions of law in involved in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal: 1. Whether the Employees Insurance Court committed an error in holding the respondent liable to pay contribution as Principal Employer for the wages paid to the workers engaged by the contractors when the job works entrusted to the contractors were carried out in the premises of the contractors themselves? 2. Whether the amount paid by the respondent towards employees welfare fund to meet the expense of supplying coffee/tea to the workers in attendance can be taken as part of the wages for levying contribution? 5. The arguments advanced by Ms. S. Jayakumari, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr. N. Chandra Raj, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 6. It is not in dispute that Ledrex Products Private Ltd. is an establishment covered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation and was assigned Code No. 51-19258-21 and that the respondent was paying contribution to the Employees State Insurance Corporation on the basis of the returns submitted by them showing the wages paid to their employees. However, the Employees State Insurance Corporation chose to hold that the respondent failed to pay contribution on nine items and determined contribution payable in respect of those items. They are as follows: The said figures were furnished by the E.S.I. Corporation in its Form-C18-Show Cause Notice. After hearing the representative of the respondent, the contribution was determined by the Deputy Regional Director of ESI, u/s 45A of the Employees State Insurance as follows: 7. A comparison of the same will show that in Item 9, 5 paise was reduced and in Item 2, Rs. 3727.42 was reduced. After hearing the representative of the respondent, the contribution was determined by the Deputy Regional Director of ESI, u/s 45A of the Employees State Insurance as follows: 7. A comparison of the same will show that in Item 9, 5 paise was reduced and in Item 2, Rs. 3727.42 was reduced. The said determination of contribution was challenged before the Employees Insurance Court in respect of Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8A, 8B and 9. 8. According to the respondent, the contribution levied in respect of factory maintenance in Items 3, 7 and 9 could not be sustained as the payment made towards maintenance would not fall within the definition of Wages u/s 2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act. The learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court held that the payment made towards maintenance would squarely fall within the definition of wages and hence the contribution levied on Items 3, 7 and 9 could not be challenged. As against the same, the respondent has not filed any appeal and the respondent has not even taken any cross-objection. So far as the levy of contribution on Items 4, 5, 8A and 8B are concerned, the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court accepted the case of the respondent and set aside the order of the Deputy Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation in respect of those items alone. 9. The amount found to have spent under Item 4 is Rs. 2400/-. The said amount has been admitted to be paid towards the Staff Welfare Fund for the purpose of providing coffee/tea to the workers who were in attendance. The Deputy Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation holding that the amount paid towards the expenditure incurred for supplying coffee/tea to the workers would also fall within the definition of wages, levied contribution for the same. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Regional Director, (Tamil Nadu) Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. Ms. Mercury Travels Limited, (2007) 2 LLJ 734 and a judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh vs. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. 1987 (1) LLN 653. Mercury Travels Limited, (2007) 2 LLJ 734 and a judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh vs. Gedore Tools India Pvt. Ltd. 1987 (1) LLN 653. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the first of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent held that the amount paid to the employees towards coffee charges and washing allowance were not in terms of the contract and they did not fall under the definition of wages found in Section 2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act. 10. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cited second supra is more elaborate on this aspect. In the said judgment, the following observations have been made: 8. So far as tea allowance under exhibit A4 is concerned, it bears recapitulation that to begin with a mug-full of tea was provided to every worker coming and attending to work in the establishment. This was later quantified in terms of money for the workers, being dissatisfied with the quality of tea, wished to make arrangements of their own. Now tea as a beverage, besides being a stimulant, is a source of refreshment. We cannot shut our eyes that in institution, private as well as governmental, wherever a sizable number of people work, provision of tea shops and canteens have been seen to be operating, whether private or institutional. The need refresh the human body by solid food or by liquids is even recognised when providing intervals for the purpose during working hours. If the employers, becoming cognizant of this elemental need, were to provide a cup of tea or the cost thereof to its employee actually coming to the establishment and working, would it serve the purpose of the law or its intendment to treat that cup of tea as wages by interpreting exclusion (c) in such a manner that a few sips out of that cup must in all events be allowed to go as the employee's contribution towards Employees' State Insurance Fund is something which is hard to digest. A glance at sub-section (2) of S. 40 of the Act reveals that it entitles the employer to recover from the employee the employee's contribution by deduction from his wages. This has then to be added to by the employer's contribution. A glance at sub-section (2) of S. 40 of the Act reveals that it entitles the employer to recover from the employee the employee's contribution by deduction from his wages. This has then to be added to by the employer's contribution. The principal employer has thus to pay to the Corporation the contribution in respect of whom he deducted the contribution. It is he who has to remit the contributions to the Corporation. In actual result, what it would mean is that some fraction of that cup of tea would have to be deducted by the employer as the employees' contribution, which cup of tea the employee, while at work, had actually consumed or to have presumptively consumed. Thus, in these circumstances, a liberal interpretation of exclusion (c) must necessarily be given as is beneficial to the interests of the employees for whose benefit the Act had been passed. This being a welfare legislation, it also appears to us that the main part of the definition of "wages" has designedly been kept wide and all embracing when it comes to inlets. In the same spirit of welfare of the employee, the latter part also provides liberal exclusions or outlets when the employee need be reimbursed on his entailing special expenses by the nature of his employment. Thus we need to give such an interpretation to exclusion (c) and hold that the provision of tea allowance to the employee, which is actually expended or supposedly expended on his reporting to duty, entailed by the employee by the nature of his employment in the establishment, and being in the nature of special expense, needs defrayment and the allowance takes the shape of the sum paid in that regard. We hold it accordingly by excluding the tea allowance by this process from the term "wages." Sequally, this part of the demand notice issued by the Corporation is without authority of law. 11. It has been held in clear terms that the tea allowance paid to the employees who are in attendance does not form part of wages and that the same should not be taken into account for determining the contribution. 11. It has been held in clear terms that the tea allowance paid to the employees who are in attendance does not form part of wages and that the same should not be taken into account for determining the contribution. The said judgment was relied on by the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court in this case to come to the conclusion that the 4th item, which was paid to the Employees Welfare Fund for providing tea/coffee to the workers in attendance, would not form part of wages and hence levy of contribution on the said amount shall not be remitted. 12. So far as the items 5, 8-A and 8-B are concerned, on an appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court came to the conclusion that the amounts found against the said items as payments made to the contractors were not wages paid by the respondent, as the respondent had entrusted the job work to outside contractors and the job works were done not within the premises of the respondent but in the premises of the independent contractors. Payment made towards job works entrusted to the independent contractors were sought to be taken as wages paid by the respondent as principal employer on the assumption that prescribing specifications by the respondent to the independent contractors, inspection made at the time of delivery of the finished goods and power to reject the finished goods if they are not in conformity with the specifications, will amount to supervision. 13. It is not in dispute that the independent contractors with whom the job works were entrusted, do the job work at their factory premises. It is not the case of the appellant Corporation that the employees of the independent contractors were placed under the control or supervision of the respondent or a representative or an officer of the respondent, who would be in a position to give on the spot instructions as to how the work was to be accomplished. It is also not the case of the appellant Corporation that the respondent herein or its officers were given power to take any action against the erring employees of the independent contractors in respect of their employment in accomplishment of the job work entrusted to the contractors. It is also not the case of the appellant Corporation that the respondent herein or its officers were given power to take any action against the erring employees of the independent contractors in respect of their employment in accomplishment of the job work entrusted to the contractors. On the other hand, based on the admitted position that the respondent who give job work to the independent contractors, does have the authority to prescribe specification and quality and also the power to reject the finished products if they do not conform to such specification or quality, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the said power will no doubt exhibit the power of supervision and control over the employees of the independent contractors. If it is a case of lending of the employees of the independent contractors to do work in the factory premises of the respondent, then there cannot be any scope for the respondent to escape the liability since Section 2(9)(ii) of E.S.I. Act contemplates such liability. 14. On the other hand, the independent contractors have to do the job work with their own employees in their premises and supply only the finished goods to the respondent herein. As pointed out supra, the power to prescribe specifications and quality and the further power to reject goods in case they do not conform to such specifications or quality will not amount to supervision or control over the employees of the independent contractors. When such a question arose before this Court in a case before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned Single Judge, pointing out conflicting views of two different Division Benches, referred the matter to a larger Bench. On such reference, a Full Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice and two other Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted. The Full Bench in the reference viz. E.S.I. Corporation vs. Bethall Engineering Company, (2007) 4 MLJ 1273 , has held in categorical terms that the right to reject or accept work on completion on scrutinizing compliance with job requirements as accomplished by a contractor, the immediate employer through his employees, by itself cannot be construed as effective and meaningful "supervision" as envisaged u/s 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. 15. 15. Following the said dictum made by the Full Bench of this Court, the learned Judge of the E.S.I. Court held that the employees of independent contractors could not be held to be the employees of the respondent as their principal employer for the purpose of payment of contribution under the E.S.I. Act. Since the question raised by the appellants as Substantial question of law has already been settled and answered by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the same cannot be projected as a substantial question of law. Apart from that, the said question of law as decided by the Full Bench of this Court has been applied by the E.S.I. Court without any deviation. The amount paid under Items 5, 8-A and 8-B being amounts paid to the independent contractors for the job works entrusted to them shall not come under the definition of wages paid by the respondent as they were paid to the independent contractors and the workers of the independent contractors had to do work at the place of the contractors where the respondent do not exercise effective supervision over the workers of the independent contractors giving on the spot instructions. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the payments made to the independent contractors, which are found mentioned in items 5, 8-A, 8-B, should be excluded from the definition of wages for the purpose of contribution does not suffer from any defect or infirmity and the said finding of the Court below deserves to be confirmed. In view of the forgoing discussions, this Court answers both the questions 1 and 2 against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.