JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 83 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act to set aside the judgment and decree of the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai dated 22.06.2015 in EIOP.No.198 of 2001 in so far as remanding the same back to the 1st respondent for fresh adjudication and to allow the appeal.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2015 in E.I.O.P.No.198 of 2001 on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court(Principal Labour Court), Chennai. 2. Brief facts which should be necessary for deciding the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows: The Regional Office, Tamil Nadu Employees State Insurance Corporation, determined the amount payable as contribution of the employer and called upon the appellant company to show cause within 15 days as to why such assessment should not be made. The said assessment was opposed by the appellant company on the ground that the claim of contribution of amounts reportedly paid to third parties to boost trade and business was improper and cannot be passed on to the employer. Considering the objections, the Employees State Insurance Corporation in TN/Ins.IV/51- 18200-66 dated 16.11.1998 passed an order U/s. 45-A of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and held that the assessment was proper and that the employer was liable to contribute even for the agents and third parties who were doing work on commission basis. Aggrieved by the said order of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, the appellant filed E.I.O.P.No.198 of 2001 before the Employees Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court), Chennai. 3. The grounds put forth by the appellant were mainly that the Employees State Insurance Act does not contemplate payment made towards service charges and commissions to be treated as wages and consequently the order directing the appellants to pay contribution so far as such third party claims (service charges/commissions) was liable to be set aside. 4. Before the Principal Labour Court, one Mr.S,Chidambaram was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.49 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Mr.V.Ananthsayam was examined as R.W.1 and Mr.R.G,Rajendra Singh was examined as R.W.2 and Exhibits R.1 to R.6 were marked. 5. 4. Before the Principal Labour Court, one Mr.S,Chidambaram was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.49 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Mr.V.Ananthsayam was examined as R.W.1 and Mr.R.G,Rajendra Singh was examined as R.W.2 and Exhibits R.1 to R.6 were marked. 5. The Principal Labour Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence before it, came to the conclusion that some of the documents were not produced before the Employees State Insurance Corporation and that if they had been produced, the Corporation would have been placed in a better position to come to a proper conclusion as to whether the amounts paid towards commission and service charges would fall within the definition of wages. On this limited score, the impugned order before the Labour Court in TN/Ins.IV/51-18200-66 dated 16.11.1998 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the respondent/Employees State Insurance Corporation for fresh consideration. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal u/s. 83 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant has raised two substantial question of law: “1. Is not the ESI Court a Court of Original jurisdiction which is entitled to apprise all the records placed before and come to a definite conclusion on its own. 2. Whether the ESI Court was justified in the facts of the case in remanding the matter back to the ESI Corporation inspite of finding that the agents for whom the claim is made are not employees of the appellant and nothing survives for consideration of ESI Department.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sbi General Insurance Company vs. Employees State Insurance, in W.P.(L) No.7264 of 2020 and the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in the case of The Assistant Director ESI Corporation rep by Deputy Director vs. M/s. Vasu Agarbatthis, 2018 SCC Online Kar 1740, wherein both the Courts have clearly held that in respect of commission agents, contribution does not stand attracted. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Employees'' State Insurance Corporation. 9. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Employees'' State Insurance Corporation. 9. The Labour Court has chosen to remand the matter for fresh consideration only on the limited ground that certain documents were not produced before the respondent Corporation and such documents were filed only before the Labour Court. No doubt, the Labour Court is entitled to remand the matter. However, such exercise of discretion to remand the matter would necessarily have to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the Labour Court has clearly found that amounts paid to trade agents and sales promotional persons who work independently outside the factory premises have not been shown by the respondent to be persons found working inside the factory premises and that they are working under the direct supervision of the appellant. Infact, the Labour Court has even come to the conclusion that the persons who are not paid by the company are not employees of the company. 10. In this context, this Court refer to Sec.2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, which reads as under: “ 2. Definitions: ....... (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 1[any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or layoff and] other additional remuneration, if any, 2[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 ; 11. A careful reading of the Sec.2(22) of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948 clearly indicates that third party agents could not be treated as employees and amounts paid to them would not fall under the definition of ''wages'' under the Act. Infact, the Court below also rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent cannot call upon the appellant to pay contribution for persons who act as agents and claim commission and service charges. Infact, the Court below also rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent cannot call upon the appellant to pay contribution for persons who act as agents and claim commission and service charges. 12. Therefore, in the light of such finding, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to remand the matter back to the respondent/Corporation merely because certain documents were made available only before the Labour Court and that if such documents had been produced before the respondent/Corporation, then the respondent/Corporation would have been in a better position to arrive at a proper conclusion. This finding of the Labour Court is therefore liable to be set aside, especially considering the fact that even if the additional documents are allowed to be considered by the respondent/Corporation, nothing would turn on such documents because the very liability of the employer i.e., the appellant herein to pay contribution for the persons who acted as sales and commission agents does not arise in the first place. This being the legal position, this Court finds that the order of remand is improper and liable to be set aside. The Labour Court could have taken note of the additional materials available before it and decided the matter without remanding it. 13. The ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court, in the cases referred hereinabove also squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed and the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2015 made on the Employees'' Insurance Court (Principal Labour Court) in E.I.O.P.No.198 of 2001 stands set aside. No costs.