- (1.) This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act from an order of the Employees' State Insurance Court. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation is the Appellant.
(2.) The question involved is whether certain amounts payable in terms of the scheme known as "Inam Scheme" would be wages within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act. An appeal would lie only when there was a substantial question of law. Wages has been defined in Section 2(22) of the Act and it is as follows: "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 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 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.
(3.) The trial authority has found that the amount paid to the workers under the Inam Scheme is not wages. According to the trial" authority the Inam Scheme was introduced some time in 1955 whereby the Applicant before the trial authority offered to make to its employees certain incentive payments upon certain specified conditions being fulfilled. The Applicant reserved the right to withdraw the scheme altogether without assigning any reason or revise its conditions at its sole discretion. This withdrawal or revision of terms would not in any way affect the terms or conditions of service. The trial authority found whether the workers fulfil the conditions as set out in the Inam, Scheme or not, the conditions of service would remain unaltered and unaffected. The trial authority further found if the payment of Inam had nothing to do with the terms of employment, it cannot be said that payment of Inam came under the definition of wages as set forth in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. According to the trial authority, the very meaning of the word "Inam" is "reward" or "prize" and by no stretch of imagination can reward or prize come under the definition of "wages". The trial authority, therefore, found that it was no wages; against that order of the trial authority, this appeal has been filed and it has been admitted as majority of Judges who heard the matter were of opinion that the matter involved a substantial question of law.;