- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation And Another v. Enfield India Ltd. .
Factual and Procedural Background
These two civil appeals were filed by the appellant-Corporation (Employees' State Insurance Corporation) by special leave against a common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 13-10-1982.
The respondent-Company had filed two writ petitions before the High Court challenging two separate orders passed by the appellant-authority. By those orders, the appellant-authority had directed the respondent-Company to remit both the employer's and employees' contributions under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in respect of amounts paid as incentive bonus to its workmen during the relevant periods.
The respondent-Company contended before the High Court that the appellant-Corporation was not entitled to direct it to remit such contributions insofar as they related to incentive bonus, on the ground that such incentive bonus did not form part of "wages" under the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court accepted this contention and held that the company was not liable to remit either the employer's or the employees' contributions in respect of the incentive bonus, as it did not form part of wages. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellant-Corporation obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present civil appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether incentive bonus paid by the respondent-Company to its workmen forms part of "wages" as defined in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
- Consequently, whether the appellant-Corporation is entitled to direct the respondent-Company to remit employer's and employees' contributions under the Act in respect of the amounts paid as incentive bonus for the relevant periods.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, (1984) 4 SCC 324 | The Supreme Court held that "wages" as defined by Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 includes, among other things, incentive allowances paid to workmen. | The Court treated this decision as directly resolving the controversy regarding the status of incentive payments, and relied on it to conclude that incentive bonus is included within "wages" under Section 2(22). On this basis, the High Court's contrary view that incentive bonus was not part of wages was held to be incorrect. |
| Modella Woollens Ltd. v. ESI Corporation, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 580 | The Supreme Court ruled that production bonus is also covered by the term "wages" as defined in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. | The Court relied on this decision, along with Harihar Polyfibres, to reinforce the settled legal position that bonus and incentive payments such as production bonus fall within "wages" under Section 2(22). This supported the conclusion that the respondent-Company is liable for ESI contributions on incentive bonus payments. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that, after the High Court's judgment dated 13-10-1982, the legal controversy concerning whether incentive and bonus payments constitute "wages" under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 had been finally resolved by this Court in subsequent decisions.
The Court referred to its decision in Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, where it was held that "wages" under Section 2(22) includes incentive allowances paid to workmen. It further referred to Modella Woollens Ltd. v. ESI Corporation, where production bonus was held to be covered by the term "wages" as defined in the same provision.
In view of these binding precedents, the Court considered the legal position to be settled: incentive-type payments fall within the statutory definition of "wages" in Section 2(22). Consequently, the premise on which the High Court had allowed the writ petitions—that incentive bonus did not form part of wages and hence did not attract ESI contributions—was incompatible with the subsequently settled law.
On this basis, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and orders in the two writ petitions, and dismissed the writ petitions. It clarified that any recovery of employer's and employees' contributions relating to the disputed incentive bonus must be effected by the appellant-Corporation in accordance with the relevant Rules and Regulations governing computation of contributions for the respective periods in question.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The civil appeals are allowed. The common judgment and orders of the Madras High Court in the two writ petitions are set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Company are dismissed. The Court directed that recovery of employer's and employees' contributions on the disputed incentive bonus be effected by the appellant-Corporation in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations for the relevant periods. There is no order as to costs.
Implications: The immediate consequence is that the respondent-Company is liable to remit employer's and employees' contributions under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of amounts paid as incentive bonus to its workmen, with the quantum and manner of recovery governed by the relevant statutory Rules and Regulations. The decision applies the already settled legal position from earlier Supreme Court judgments and does not purport to lay down any new precedent beyond enforcing that existing interpretation of "wages" under Section 2(22).
Order
1. These two civil appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing two writ petitions filed by the respondent-Company. The contention of the respondent-Company before the High Court was that the appellant-Corporation is not entitled to direct the respondent-Company to remit the employer's and employees' contributions to the extent to which they covered the amounts of incentive bonus paid to the workmen by the said company during the relevant periods. Two different orders of the appellant-authority directing the company to pay these amounts resulted in the aforesaid two writ petitions. A Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the company was not liable to remit either the employer's or employees' contributions so far as the incentive bonus paid to the employees was concerned as according to the High Court it did not form part of wages. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court was rendered on 13-10-1982. By grant of special leave to appeal, the present appeals are filed by the appellant-Corporation.
2. Now, in the meantime, this Court has finally resolved this controversy. The two decisions of this Court which have a direct bearing on the controversy between the parties may be noted. In Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, ESI Corpn. (1984) 4 SCC 324 a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court speaking through O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. held that “wages” as defined by Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) would include amongst others incentive allowances paid to the workmen. A.N Sen, J. in his supplementary judgment also took the same view. There is a later decision of this Court in the case of Modella Woollens Ltd. v. ESI Corpn. 1994 Supp (3) SCC 580 which has ruled that production bonus is also covered by the term “wages” as defined by Section 2(22) of the said Act. In view of this settled legal position, therefore, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders of the High Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondent before the High Court are dismissed. In view of the present decision of ours, whatever recovery has to be effected by the appellant-Corporation regarding employer's and employees' contributions concerning the disputed incentive bonus will have to be effected keeping in view the relevant Rules and Regulations governing the computations of such contributions for the relevant periods for which such contributions are demanded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Alert