THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 COMMENTS (xviii) A petrol pump-cum-service station is coverable under this Act; Baranger Service Station v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1988 Lab IC 302. (xix) This Act applies to a factory where any manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of electrical energy; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Gopi Prints, 1990 LLR 51 (AP). (xx) There is no distinction between a "hotel" and a "club" which renders catering services to its members, Cricket Club of India v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1992 Lab IC 2029 (Bom). (xxi) Separate buildings, when used for one continuous manufacturing process, will constitute a single factory under this Act; A-1 Plastic Firm v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1993 LLR 156 (Mad). (xxii) More than one factory or establishment situated within the common boundary may be taken to constitute a single unit; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Bengal Printing Works, 1984 Lab IC 1. (xxiii) In order to determine the relationship of employer and employee between the principal employer and the employees engaged by the contractor (immediate employer), the supervision by the principal employer or his agent is essential; C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, AIR 1992 SC 573. (xxiv) Dry cleaning merely cleans the clothes either by washing or through the process of dry cleaning. There is no manufacturing activity involved therein. No new product comes into existence. By no stretch of imagination could the activity of dry cleaning be regarded as the manufacturing activity; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Triplex Dry Cleaners, (1998) 1 SCC 196. (xxv) A person will be the immediate employer and not the principal employer even if the employees have been employed by him, if he supplied services to a factory or establishment, to which the Act applies; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. T. Shankar Singh T. Byali, (1998) 92 FJR 645 (Kar). (xxvi) A director of a company is an "occupier"; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Gurdial Singh, (1974) 45 FJR 308. (xxvii) A director who is in possession of the contribution cards and also responsible for sending the same, can be held "principal employer"; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M.P. Roongta, (1998) 56 FLR 115 (Raj). (xxviii) The term "wages" includes house rent allowance, heat, gas and dust allowance and incentive allowance; Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1680. (xxix) Subsidy for life insurance premium is "wages"; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. J.S. & W. Mills Ltd., (1988) 57 FLR 32 (Raj). (xxx) L.I.C. premium subsidy is to be included in "wages"; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Shri Ram Chemical Industries, (1988) 56 FLR 343 (Raj). (xxxi) Incentive bonus (but not ex-gratia payment) is a part of "wages"; M.P. State Transport Corpn. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (1991) 62 FLR 369 (MP). (xxxii) "Attendance bonus" payable to the employees under the terms of the settlement is "wages"; Williams (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1994 LLR 1(SC). (xxxiii) Bonus or ex-gratia payment is not "wages"; Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Bata Shoe (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 237. (xxxiv) Over-time wages is not "wages"; Hind Art Press v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (1990) 2 LLJ 195 (Karn). (xxxv) Payments made in respect of "paid holidays" are not "wages"; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Malabar Cashew Nut and Allied Products, (1993) 1 CLR 199 (Ker).