Harihar Polyfibres Vs. The Regional
Director, ESI Corporation [1984] INSC 165 (4 September 1984)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1680 1985 SCR (1) 712 1984
SCC (4) 324 1984 SCALE (2)295
CITATOR INFO :
F 1992 SC1737 (9)
ACT:
Employees' State Insurance Act 1948, Section
2 (22)- "Wages"-'House rent allowance'-'Night shift allowance'-
'Heat, gas and dust allowance'-'Incentive allowance'-Payment of-Whether
"wages".
Words & Phrases: "Wages"-
Meaning of-Section 2 (22) Employees State Insurance Act 1948.
HEADNOTE:
The question was whether the expression
'wages' as defined in s. 2 (22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
includes 'House' Rent Allowance', Night Shift Allowance' 'Heat, Gas and Dust
Allowance' and 'Incentive Allowance' paid by an employer to his employees,
HELD: By the Court
1.
Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 is a piece of social welfare legislation. The
definition of 'wages' is designedly wide. The definition on its plain reading
is clear and unambiguous. Even if there is any ambiguity, the expression has to
be given a liberal interpretation and receive beneficent construction.[714C]
2.
'Wages'
as defined in s. 2 (22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 must
necessarily include 'House Rent Allowance', 'Night Shift Allowance', 'Heat, Gas
and Dust Allowance ' and 'Incentive Allowance'. [715C] Braithwaite & Co.
(India) Ltd. v. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, [1968]1 S.C.R. 771,
referred to N.G.E.F. Ltd. v. Deputy Regional Director, E.S.I.C., Bangalore,
[1980] 1 LAB. I.C, 431 and Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad v.
Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Rajahamundry, 1978 LAB. I.C. 19, approved.
Bengal Potteries Ltd. v. Regional Director,
W. Bengal Region, Employees 713 State Insurance Corporation and others, [1973]
LAB. I.C. 1328 (V 6 P 295), over-ruled.
Per Chinnappa Reddy, J.
Wages as defined in s. 2 (22) of the Act
includes not only remuneration paid or payable under the terms of the contract
of employment, express or implied but further extends to other additional
remuneration, if any paid at intervals not exceeding two months, though outside
the terms of employment.
[714G] 'Remuneration' under the first clause
has to be under a contract of employment, express or implied while
'remuneration' under the third clause need not be under the contract of
employment but may be any 'additional remuneration' outside the contract of
employment, [715B] Per Amarendra Nath Sen, J.
The inclusive part and the exclusive portion
in the definition of 'wages' in s. 2 (22) clearly indicate that the expression
'wages' has been given a very wide meaning. The inclusive part of the
definition read with the exclusive part in the definition clearly shows that
the inclusive portion is not intended to be limited only to the items mentioned
therein. Taking into consideration the excluding part in the definition and
reading the definition as a whole the inclusive part, is only illustrative and
tends to express the wide meaning and import of the word 'wages'.
[717H; 718A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 9795 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 20th
April, 1983 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc. First Appeal No. 639 of 1983.
K.R. Nagaraj, Naresh Kaushik, R.S. Hegde and
B. Krishna Prasad, Miss CS Lalitha for the Petitioners.
The following Orders were delivered CHINNAPPA
REDDY, J. The question for consideration in this petition for special leave to
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is whether the expression
'wages', defined by s.2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, includes 'House
Rent Allowance', 'Night Shift Allowance, paid to those employees who are
obliged to work in the night shift and the 'Heat, Gas and Dust Allowance' and
'Incentive Allowance' paid by an employer to his employees. Section 2(22)
defines 'wages' as meaning:
"all remuneration paid or payable in
cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment, 714 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 travelling allowance
or the value of 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." The Employees State Insurance Act
is a welfare legislation and the definition of 'wages' is designedly wide. Any
ambiguous expression is, or course, bound to receive a beneficent construction
at our hands too. Now, under the definition first, whatever remuneration is
paid or payable to an employee under the terms of the contract of the
employment, express or implied is wages; thus if remuneration is paid in terms
of the original contract of employment or in terms of a settlement arrived at
between the employer and the employees which by necessary implication becomes
part of the contract of employment it is wages: second, whatever payment is
made to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock out:
strike which is not illegal or lay-off is wages; and third, other additional
remuneration, if any paid at intervals not exceeding two months is also wages;
this is unqualified by any requirement that it should be pursuant to any term
of the contract of employment, express or implied. However, 'wages' does not
include any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident
fund, or under the Act, any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling
concession, any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses
entailed on him by the nature of his employment and any gratuity payable on
discharge. Therefore wages as defined includes remuneration paid or payable
under the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied but further
extends to other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not
exceeding two months, though outside the terms of employment. Thus remuneration
paid under the terms of the contract of the employment express or implied) or
otherwise if paid at intervals not exceeding two months is wages. The
interposition of the clause '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' between the 715 first clause, 'all remuneration paid or payable in cash to
an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment, express of implied,
was fulfilled' and the third clause, 'other additional remuneration, if any,
paid at intervals not exceeding two months, 'makes it abundantly clear that
while 'remuneration' under the first clause has, to be under a contract of
employment, express or implied, 'remuneration' under the third clause need not
be under the contract of employment but may be any 'additional remuneration'
outside the contract of employment. So, there appears to our mind no reason to
exclude 'House Rent Allowance', Night Shift Allowance', Incentive Allowance'
and 'Heat, Gas and Dust Allowance' from the definition of 'wages'. A Full Bench
of the Karnataka High Court in N.G.E.F. Ltd. v. Deputy Regional Director,
E.S.I.C., Bangalore considering the question at some length held that the
amount paid by way of incentive under the scheme of settlement entered into
between the Management and its workman was wages' within the meaning of s.
2(22) of Employees' State Insurance Act. It was observed by the Full Bench of
the Karnataka High Court as follows:- "It is true that the word
'remuneration' is found both in the first and second parts of the definition.
But the condition attached to such payment in
the first part cannot legitimately be extended to the second part. The other
'additional remuneration' referred to in the second part of the definition is
only qualified by the condition attached thereto (that is, paid at intervals
not exceeding two months). That was also the view taken by a Full Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Employees State Insurance Corpn. Hyderabad v. Andhra
Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. and also the Bombay High Court in M/s Mahalaxmi Glass
Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corpn. But this aspect of the
matter has been completely overlooked by this Court in Kirloskar's case."
In Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad v. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills
Ltd., Rajahumundry, a Full Bench (Divan, C.J., Raghuvir and Gangadhara Rao, J.)
of the Andhra Pradesh 716 High court held that incentive bonus paid to an
employee (which the Court, on the facts of the case, found was not remuneration
in terms of the contract of employment, express or implied) fell within the
third part of the definition of 'wages' that is 'additional remuneration' if
any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months'. The Full Bench said:-
"The word 'other' appearing at commencement of the third part of the
definition of wages under s.2(22) indicates that it must be remuneration or
additional remuneration other than the remuneration which is referred to in the
earlier part of the definition viz., all remuneration paid or payable in cash to
an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied,
were fulfilled and incentive bonus in the present scheme is certainly
additional remuneration. It must be emphasized at this stage that under the
third part of the definition of 'wages' it is actual factum of payment which
counts because the word used is 'paid' as distinguished from 'paid' or payable.
The moment you get any additional
remuneration other than the remuneration payable under the contract of
employment and if this additional remuneration is paid at intervals not
exceeding two months, it becomes wages by virtue of the third part of the
definition of 'wages'." The learned judges of the Full Bench referred to
the judgment of a learned Single judge of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal
Potteries Ltd. v. Regional Director, W. Bengal Region, Employees, State
Insurance Corporation and others, where the learned Judges had held that
"the additional remuneration sought to be included by the expression' and
includes other additional remuneration' must be remuneration which though no
part of the wages could be paid as part of the terms of contract of
employment." The Full Bench did not agree with the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge and said:- "We are unable to agree with this part of
his reasoning and for the reason which we have set out hereinabove we disagree
with this part of his judgment in para (3)".
717 We express our respectful agreement with
what has been said by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
above extracted passage and their dissent from the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Full Bench further held
that 'House Rent Allowance' paid by an employer to his workmen would constitute
wages within the meaning of the s. 2(22) of the Act.
Our attention was also invited to the case of
Braithwaite & Co. (India) Ltd. v. The Employees' State Insurance
Corporation (V. Bhargava and C.A. Vaidialingam, JJ). The case arose prior to
the amendment of the Employees' State Insurance Act in 1966 when the
explanation to s. 41 was bodily lifted from s. 41 into the definition of 'wages'
in s.2(22). The case related to the payment of an ex-gratia reward styled as an
'Inam' (a bounty) which was admittedly not claimed to be 'additional
remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months' but claimed
to be 'remuneration paid or payable to in cash to an employee if the terms of
the contract of employment, express or implied was fulfilled' which the Court
found it was not. The case has been sufficiently explained by the Full Bench of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in E.S.I. Corpn., Hyderabad v.
A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) and by the Full
Bench of the Karnataka High Court in N.G.E.F. Bangalore v. Deputy Regional
Director, E.S.I.C., Bangalore. We do not think that it is necessary to say
anything further in this matter. In this view, the special leave petition is
dismissed.
AMARENDRA NATH SEN,J. I have read the
judgment of my learned brother O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
I entirely agree that on true interpretation
of the word 'wages' defined in S.2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act,
'wages' must necessarily include 'House Rent Allowance, Night Shift Allowance,
Heat, Gas and Dust Allowance and Incentive Allowance'.
The definition of 'wages' has been set out in
the judgment of my learned brother. The inclusive part and the exclusive
portion in the definition clearly indicate, to my mind, that the expression
'wages' has been given a very wide meaning. The inclusive part of 718 the
definition read with exclusive part in the definition clearly shows to my mind,
that the inclusive portion is not intended to be limited only to the items
mentioned therein.
Taking into consideration the excluding part
in the definition and reading the definition as a whole the inclusive part, to
my mind, is only illustrative and tends to express the wide meaning and import
of the word 'wages' used in the Employees State Insurance Act.
The Employees' State Insurance Act is a piece
of social welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees. The Act
has to be necessarily so construed as will serve its purpose and objects.
I entirely agree with my learned brother that
on a proper interpretation of the term 'wages' the legislative intent is made
manifestly clear that the term 'wages' as used in the Act will include House Rent
Allowance Night Shift Allowance, Heat, Gas and Dust Allowance and Incentive
Allowance. The definition, to my mind, on its plain reading is clear and
unambiguous. Even if any ambiguity could have been suggested, the expression
must be given a liberal interpretation beneficial to the interests of the
employees for whose benefit the Employees State Insurance Act has been passed.
All other aspects including the various
decisions of the High Courts on this question have been considered by my
learned brother in his judgment. I entirely agree with the views of my learned
brother and I have nothing more to add.
With these observations I agree with my
learned brother that this Special Leave Petition has to be dismissed.
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
Back
