TMI Blog1966 (11) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contract of employment of the employees. Therefore, it will not come within additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act. Appeal dismissed. - C.A. 2777 OF 1980 - - - Dated:- 6-11-1966 - K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ. ORDER These appeals are by certificate granted by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution. The question of law of public importance is; whether the overtime wages paid to an employee by the appellants are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the `Act'). It is not necessary to record the facts in all these cases. Suffice it to state that the facts in C.A. No.2784/80 are sufficient for disposal of the common controversy. Admittedly, the appellants have taken overtime work from their existing employees. The employees had done work during the stipulated working time and thereafter they were asked to perform overtime work which they did and accordingly, the overtime rate of wages was paid in terms of the agreement between the appellants and the workmen. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to mutual payment not as part of wages but as remuneration for services rendered outside the contract of employment of the employees. Therefore, it will not come within additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act. In support thereof, both the learned counsel have placed strong reliance on the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. E.S.I. Corporation Ors. [(1979) LAB. I.C. 852] and Karnataka High Court in Hind Art Press, Mangalore vs. ESI Corporation Anr. [(1990) LLJ 195]. The question is; whether the view taken by the said High Courts is correct in law and whether the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has committed any error of law in interpreting of the word `wages' under Section 2(22) of the Act? It is seen that Section 2(9) defines employee thus: Employee means any person employed for wage in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and- (i) who is directly employed by the principal employer or any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with work of, the factory or establishment, whether such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof with which we are not concerned. Under the proviso, the employee whose wages excluding remuneration for overtime work exceeds such wages as may be prescribed by the Central Government at any time after and not before the beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period. It would thus be seen that the Legislature has taken care to bring the employer within the net of beneficial provisions of the Act. Employee whose remuneration does not exceed the prescribed remuneration by the Central Government for a month or any time after the beginning of the contribution period, will be governed by the provisions of the Act. In other words, from the exclusion of the overtime work, in computation of the remuneration to the workmen, it does appear that the Legislature intended not to exclude employee who receives overtime wages from the purview of the Act though he did overtime work and had received remuneration. On the other hand, it would appear that the Legislature recognised the fact of the employer engaging, by contract express or implied, the services of the existing employee for doing overtime work and paying the remuneration. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployer to his employee are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act. This Court considered elaborately and had held that the Act is a welfare legislation and the definition of wages is designedly wide. Any ambiguous expression is, of course, bound to receive a beneficent construction at the hands of the Court. Under the definition, 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 to the employee in terms of the original contract of employment or in terms of a settlement which by necessary implication becomes part of the contract of employment, it is wages. It was also further held that this inclusive part as against the exclusionary part in the definition clearly indicates that the expression wages has been given a very wide meaning. The inclusive part of the definition read along with the exclusionary part in the definition, clearly shows that the inclusive part is not intended to be limited only to the items mentioned therein. Taking into consideration the exclusionary part in the definition and reading the definition as a whole, the inclusive part is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
