REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC Vs. ANUP ENGINEERING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act), the appellant, original opponent, has challenged the judgment dated 23.01.1996 rendered by Employees' Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in E.S.I. Application No.28 of 1989 whereby it is held that the amount paid as "incentive" would not fall within the wages and the demand raised by the appellant was quashed and set aside and it was held that such a demand is unreasonable and illegal and thereby permanently restrained the appellant from recovering any contribution as per the aforesaid demand notice.

(2.) HEARD Mr.Hemant S. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, and Mr.Nisarg Desai, learned advocate for M/s.Nanavati Associates for the respondentCompany.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellant has contended that the definition of word "wages" as interpreted by the trial Court is erroneous and that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the "Performance Encouragement Scheme" is not part of wages is de hors the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that as provided under Section 2(22) of the Act, the respondentCompany is liable to make contribution and the appellant had therefore rightly issued the demand notice. It is further contended that the aforesaid "Performance Encouragement Scheme" is a method of making payment of wages for getting enhanced production, which means that it is impliedly a payment or remuneration by way of wages over and above the regular wages on account of better performance made by the employee and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is erroneous. It is also contended that the provisions of the Act is to be interpreted in wider sense and in a manner which should be beneficial to the workmen. It is therefore contended that the impugned order is illegal, bad in law and deserves to be quashed.