JUDGMENT CHANDURKAR J.- These two first appeals under section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Act”) arise out of the orders passed on applications filed by the respondents under section 75 of the said Act in the Employees Insurance Court, Nagpur facts are few and not in dispute. The respondent No.1 in both the appeals is the Model Mills, Nagpur, which is a limited company and is covered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme and according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is required to contribute its own share under the provisions of the scheme. There is no dispute that the company has been paying its contributions regularly according to the provisions of the Act. I-low ever, a dispute arose as to whether the amount paid to its employees towards the authorised leave which they enjoy under the provisions of sections 79 and 80 of the Factories Act, 1948, has to be included in the total wage bill of the employer for the purposes of computing its share of special contribution under section 73A of the Insurance Act. This dispute raised by the Company related to a period upto June 17, 1967 which was a period prior to the amendment of the definition of the word wages in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act whereby the words "any payment made to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lockout, strike and layoff" were added in the definition of wages. In view of the failure of the company to take into account the payments made to its employees towards the authorised leave, the appellant who is the Assistant Regional Director-in-charge, Employees State Insurance Corporation at Nagpur, demanded an additional sum of Rs. 45,181/by way of special contribution .for the period from January 1, 1959 to June 30, 1967. The Company, however, denied any such liability and approached the Employees Insurance Court for directions by making applications under section 85 of the Insurance Act. Besides the contention that the amounts paid to the employees in respect of the authorised leave period could not be included in the total wage bill for the purpose of section 73A of the Insurance Act, there were other subsidiary contentions raised with regard to its liability for certain periods. Besides the contention that the amounts paid to the employees in respect of the authorised leave period could not be included in the total wage bill for the purpose of section 73A of the Insurance Act, there were other subsidiary contentions raised with regard to its liability for certain periods. It was contended by the company that the Mill was taken over by the Authorised Controller and a scheme of composition for the settlement of the liabilities of the company as on 17th July 1959 was sponsored by the Authorised Controller before the High Court at Bombay. The said scheme was sanctioned by the High Court by order dated July 26, 1962. On these facts, it was urged that in any case, the liabilities of the company in respect of its affairs prior to July 17, 1959, could be settled only in terms of the scheme approved by the High Court. It was contended that in view of the scheme sanctioned by the High Court the proper forum for recovery regarding the claim for contribution up to July 17, 1959 was the High Court. It was also contended that the Mill remained closed from April 6, 1959 to October 23, 1959 and as such it was exempt from the applicability of the Act for the aforesaid period. It was lastly contended that in view of the provisions of section 77 of the Act, the demand for recovery of the arrears prior to the period of the filing of such applications was time barred. 2. The appellant by his written statement contended that the demand for the contribution made by him was legal and proper. According to him, the definition of wages in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act and even before the amendment included payments made by the company to its employees towards authorised leave, According to him, the amounts paid by the company on account of leave with wages were wages within the meaning of the said definition and the company had suppressed the said amounts paid by it and had thus managed to escape its liability to pay contribution on that amount. He denied that any part of the demand made from the company was barred by limitation. He denied that any part of the demand made from the company was barred by limitation. He also denied the contentions of the company about its liability to pay contribution for the period covered by the High Court scheme and the time during which the mill was closed. As common questions of law and facts arose in the two applications they were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Judge. He held that under the definition of wages as it stood before the amendment the company was not liable to pay employers special contribution on the amount of leave with wages paid to the employees and as such till the definition of wages was amended, they could not be asked to pay such amount. As regards limitation he held that no part of the claim was barred by limitation under section 77 of the Insurance Act. The learned Judge accepted the contention that the liabilities of the company for the period from January 1, 1959 to July 17, 1959, were required to be settled in terms of a scheme approved by the High Court and held that the appellant will have to approach the High Court for his claim in that behalf. It was conceded by both parties before him that the Company would be exempt from the application of the Act for the period during which the Mill was closed. In the view taken by him on the interpretation of the definition of wages in section 2 (22) the learned Judge held that the appellant could not claim special contribution on the amount of leave with wages for the period prior to June 17, 1967. 3. We may state at the outset that Mr. Dhabe, the learned Counsel appearing for the company did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the demand for the employers special contribution was not barred by limitation under section 77 of the Insurance Act. Mr. Hardas, the learned Counsel appearing for the Assistant Regional Director, however, tried to contend that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the Companys liability towards its special contribution was required to be settled only in terms of the scheme sanctioned by the High Court and that the proper forum for that purpose would be the High Court. Hardas, the learned Counsel appearing for the Assistant Regional Director, however, tried to contend that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the Companys liability towards its special contribution was required to be settled only in terms of the scheme sanctioned by the High Court and that the proper forum for that purpose would be the High Court. Now, it is undisputed that a scheme was sanctioned by the High Court and as per the scheme all the liabilities of the applicant company in respect of its affairs prior to July 18, 1959, were required to be settled in terms of the scheme approved by the High Court. The appellant was party to those proceedings. If that is so, we do not see how the Insurance Court could decide a dispute as regards that amount particularly when the Corporation was a party to the scheme. 4. The principal question that requires to be determined in this case, however, is whether the payments made by the company to its employee towards leave were covered by the definition of wages in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act prior to amendment. The definition of wages in section 2 (22) before its amendment by Act No. 44 of 1966, which came into force on January 28, 1968, was 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, or 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." By the Amending Act 44 of 1966 "any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lockout, strike, which is not illegal or layoff" was included in the definition of wages. In view of this amendment, the liability of the company to pay special contribution on the amounts paid to the employees in respect of the period of authorised leave cannot be disputed from the date of the amendment. 5. In view of this amendment, the liability of the company to pay special contribution on the amounts paid to the employees in respect of the period of authorised leave cannot be disputed from the date of the amendment. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be relevant to consider the scheme of the Insurance Act. It is an Act to provide benefit to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and such other benefits. Chapter IV which consists of section 38 to 45B, deals with contributions to be made by both the employer and the employees. Section 38 provides that "all employees in factories or establishments to which the Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided by the Act." Sub-section (1) of section 39 enjoins the employer to pay the contribution to the corporation which is comprised of the contribution payable to the employer as well as the contribution payable by the, employee. Sub-section (2) of section 39 inter alia provides that such contributions have to be paid at the rate specified in the first schedule. Under sub-section (3) of section 39, it is provided that "a week shall be the unit in respect of which all contributions shall be payable under this Act." Section 40 inter alia provides that "the principal employer shall pay in respect of every employee, whether directly employed by him or by or through an immediate employer, both the employers contribution and the employees contributions. Sub-section (2) of section 40 gives a right "to the principal employer" to recover from the employer, the employees contribution by deduction from his wages and not otherwise". Section 41 relates to the rights of the principal employer who has paid contribution in respect of an employee employed by or through an immediate employer, to recover the amount of the contributions so paid (that is to say the employers contribution as well as the employees contribution, if any) from the immediate employer, either by deduction from any amount payable to him by the principal employer under any contract, or as a debt payable by the immediate employer. Sub-section (2) of section 41 gives a right to the immediate employer to recover the employees contribution from the employee employed by or through him by deduction from wages and not otherwise, but subject to the conditions specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 40. Before the amendment by the Act 44 of 1966 there was an explanation to section 41 which is of some relevance. This explanation reads, "for the purposes of sections 40 and 41, wages shall be deemed to include payment to an employee in respect of any payment of authorised leave, lockout or legal strike." By the Amending Act 44, 1966, this explanation has been omitted while the payments made on account of authorised leave and such other matters have been included in the definition of wages as hall been indicated above. Chapter V of the Insurance Act deals with the benefits which the employees would be entitled under the Act. It is unnecessary to refer to them as they are not relevant to decide the point in issue. We may then refer to the provision of section 73-A in Chapter VA which deals with the transitory provisions. We may notice that the liability to pay the employees contribution under the provisions of section 39, has been substituted by providing for its liability to pay employers special contribution under section 73A. It would thus appear that so long as the provisions of section 73A are operative the employer is not liable to pay the employers contribution which it would have ordinarily paid under the provisions of section 39 of the Act. This is made clear by the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 73A. Sub-section (1) of section 73A provides that so long as the transitory provisions contained in Chapter VA were in force, the principal employer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, pay to the Corporation a special contribution (hereinafter referred to as the employers special contribution) at the rate specified under sub-section (3). Sub-section (2) makes it clear that this special contribution which the employer has to pay is in lieu of employers contribution payable under Chapter IV. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that this special contribution which the employer has to pay is in lieu of employers contribution payable under Chapter IV. Sub-section (3) lays down that the employers special contribution shall consist of such percentage, not exceeding five per cent of the total wage bill of the employer, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time. There is an explanation to section 73A which defines the expression "Total wage bill" in section 73A. "Total Wage bill" mean the "total wages" which have accrued due to employees in a factory or establishment in respect of such wage periods as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Sub-section (4) of section 73A makes a provision as to the periods or intervals when the employers special contribution shall fall due. A power is given to the Central Government to fix such period or intervals. 6. We may lastly refer to Schedule I of the Insurance Act which relates to the computation of employees contribution and employers contribution payable under section 39 of the Act. The schedule shows that both the employer and the employees have to pay their contribution in different proportion as laid down in the table. Para I of Schedule 1 shows that the amount of weekly contribution payable in a contribution period in respect of an employee shall be calculated with reference to the average daily wages during the first wage period in respect of that employee ending in such contribution period. Para No.2 makes a provision as to what should be considered to be an average daily wages of an employee and different categories of such employees have been mentioned therein. Explanation III to para 2 expressly states that except as provided by regulations, wages, pay, salaries or allowances paid in respect of any period of leave or holidays other than the weekly holidays shall not be taken into account in calculating wages. Explanation IV defines wage period to mean the period in respect of which wages are ordinarily payable whether in terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, or otherwise. 7. Explanation IV defines wage period to mean the period in respect of which wages are ordinarily payable whether in terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, or otherwise. 7. It would thus be clear that the question, as to whether the leave with wages should be included in the total wage bill for the purposes of computing the employers special contribution under section 73A, would depend on the construction of the definition of "wages" contained in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act. We would, therefore, proceed to examine the definition of wages contained in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act. This definition consists of three parts. The first part shows that 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. The second part deals with, other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months and this is to be considered as wages. The last part deals with the negative aspect and expressly states that the items contained in clauses (a) to (d) will not be included in the term wages . We are really concerned in this case with the interpretation of the first part. The question is whether the payments made for the authorised leave or in other words the payments made as leave with wages can be considered to be wages as defined in the first part. Even as regards the first part of the definition of wages in section 2 (22), three conditions must be satisfied before a payment can be said to be included therein. Firstly, it must be a remuneration; secondly, such remuneration must be paid or payable in cash to the employee, thirdly it must be paid or payable if the terms of the contract or employment express or implied were fulfilled. Before amounts paid for the period of authorised leave to an employee could be considered as being included in the definition of wages, all these three conditioJ1s must be satisfied. It must be shown that such payment is by way of remuneration. It must also be shown that the remuneration so paid or is payable in cash and lastly it should be paid or payable if the terms of the contract of employment, were fulfilled. 8. It is urged by Mr. It must be shown that such payment is by way of remuneration. It must also be shown that the remuneration so paid or is payable in cash and lastly it should be paid or payable if the terms of the contract of employment, were fulfilled. 8. It is urged by Mr. Hardas that although there is no express contract or agreement as regards the payment for the leave period to an employee, there is a statutory obligation in that behalf contained in sections 79 and 81 of the Factories Act. It is also urged by him that in view of these statutory provisions, it must be held that the payment of leave with wages must be considered as remuneration for the purposes of definition wages in the Insurance Act. Section 79 to 81 of the Factories Act relate to the rights of the employee or the worker to get leave with wages. As considerable reliance has been placed on the said provisions of the Factories Act, it will be necessary for us to consider in some detail the said provisions. The scheme of section 79 appears to be that a worker who has worked for a particular period in the previous year shall be allowed during the subsequent calendar year leave with wages for a number of days calculated at the rate mentioned under this section. Sub-section (1) shows that the worker who has worked for a period of 240 days or more in a factory during a calendar year has to be allowed during the subsequent calender year leave with wages for a number of, days calculated at the rate of, (i) if an adult, one day for every twenty days of work performed by him during the previous calender year and (ii) if a child, one day for every fifteen days of work performed by him during the: previous calendar year. Explanation 1 inter alia provides that in certain cases such as layoff, maternity leave, it shall be deemed to be days on which the worker has worked in a factory for the purpose of computation of the period of 240 days or more, but he shall not earn leave for these days. Explanation 1 inter alia provides that in certain cases such as layoff, maternity leave, it shall be deemed to be days on which the worker has worked in a factory for the purpose of computation of the period of 240 days or more, but he shall not earn leave for these days. Sub-section (3) of section 79 provides that if a worker is discharged or dismissed from service during the course of the year he shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rates laid down in sub-section (1) even if he has not worked for the entire period specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) entitling him to earn leave. Sub-section (5) makes a provision for carrying over the leave earned by the worker during the previous year if he has not enjoyed the leave during the year in which he could have enjoyed the leave. However, there is a restriction on the total number of days of leave that may be carried out to a subsequent year and it cannot exceed thirty days in the case of an adult or forty days in the case of a child. There is also a proviso that he is entitled to the unavailed leave without any limit, if he has applied for leave with wages but has not been given such leave in accordance with any scheme laid down in sub-sections (8) and (9). Sub-section (6) also makes it clear that the number of times in which leave may be taken during any year shall not exceed three. Sub-section (7) relates to the case where the worker intends himself to avail leave with wages due to him to cover a period of illness. In such a case, the admissible wages have to be paid within the prescribed period. Sub-section (II) provides for the contingency where the services of the employee are terminated by the employer before he has taken the entire leave to which he was entitled. Under this sub-section the occupier is made liable to pay for the leave period if his services are terminated by the occupier before he has taken the entire leave to which he is entitled, or if having applied for and having not been granted such leave, the worker quits employment before he has taken such leave. Section 80 relates to the computation of wages during leave period. Section 80 relates to the computation of wages during leave period. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that for the leave allowed to him under section 79 a worker shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily average of his total full time earnings for the days on which he worked during the month immediately preceding his leave exclusive of any overtime and bonus but inclusive of dearness allowance and the cash equivalent of the advantage accruing through the concessional sale to the worker of foodgrains and other articles. Sub-section (2) provides for the computation of the cash equivalent of the advantage accruing through the concessional sale to the worker of foodgrains and other articles. Lastly section 81 which makes a provision regarding payment in advance in certain cases lays down that a worker who has been allowed leave for not less than four days in the case of adult and five days in the case of a child shall, before the leave begins, be paid the wages due for the period of the leave allowed. In view of these statutory provisions it is undoubtedly true that the employee in a factory is entitled to earn leave as laid down in these provisions and is also entitled to wages for such leave period. The question for consideration, however, would be whether such payment provided for in sections 79 to 81 of the Factories Act can be said to be remuneration within the meaning of the definition of wages in section 2 (22) for the purposes of the Insurance Act. Now the dictionary meaning of the word "remuneration" is recompense or reward. It is payment by way of recompense for services rendered. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bala Subrahmanya Rajaram v. B. C. Patil1 where it was observed :- "Remuneration is only a more formal version of "payment" and payment is a recompense for service rendered." Admittedly; the employee is recompensated for the services rendered by him when he is paid the wages for the day or the month for which he has worked. But then the question arises whether the provisions incorporated in the Factories Act, which entitled the employee to earn certain quantum of leave because he has worked in the factory in the previous year, can be said to be a recompensation for the services rendered by him. But then the question arises whether the provisions incorporated in the Factories Act, which entitled the employee to earn certain quantum of leave because he has worked in the factory in the previous year, can be said to be a recompensation for the services rendered by him. It cannot be seriously disputed the provisions relating to grant of leave with wages really provide for a benefit given to an employee for having worked for a particular number of days in the past. It is to be noted that it is quite possible in a given case that the employee who has earned the leave on the basis of his services rendered by him in the past may not avail of that benefit or concession given to him under the Act. This may, for instance, arise in the case where the employee retires, from service voluntarily without making an application for leave. Such a contingency may also arise where age of superannuating is prescribed under the standing orders of the Factory and he may not have made an application for grant of leave which he has earned during the continuance of his service. The fact that the employee mayor may not choose to exercise his right to take leave is a circumstance to indicate that leave with wages contemplated by sections 79 and 80 of the Act are in the nature of a benefit which the employee earns on account of his having rendered services in the past. In this connection, it would be useful to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Kulkarnis. The question involved in that case was whether, the workman was entitled to, the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the amount which he would be entitled for the privilege leave. It has been observed in that case:- "It is well-known that privilege leave is a sort of benefit granted to an employee so that he may recoup health after a long period of work and return to work refreshed. In short, it is a benefit which would have little meaning if it were not to be actually enjoyed by the worker and instead the worker were to be given a monetary privilege. In short, it is a benefit which would have little meaning if it were not to be actually enjoyed by the worker and instead the worker were to be given a monetary privilege. This is the fundamental basis for the grant of the benefit of privilege leave and hence it is implicit in the nature of such benefit and the purpose for which it is granted that it ought not to be allowed to be converted into money except perhaps when ultimately the worker retires with privilege leave to his credit. Normally privilege leave is, by its very nature and purpose, a benefit to be enjoyed and not to be encashed." Even in the case governed by the provisions of section 79 of the Factories Act, it seems to be clear that the employee is not entitled to convert his earned leave into a monetary benefit by working during the leave period. It appears to us that the employee earns the benefit of leave with wages by virtue of his working for a particular minimum number of days in the preceding year. Enjoyment of such a leave by the employee which has been earned by him would, in our opinion, be nothing but a benefit flowing from the statutory provisions of sections 79 and 80 of the Factories Act. It is also significant that although at the end of the year, the number of days earned by the employee by way of leave becomes certain still he does not automatically get the payment thereof at the end of the year. It is a contingent payment circumscribed by the conditions prescribed in section 79 of the Act and in most of the cases it is left to the will of the employee to ask for such leave. It may be that the employee earns leave by reason of the fulfilment of the statutory requirements of section 79 of the Factories Act and we may assume that he earns the leave by reason of fulfilment of the contract of employment subject to the provisions of section 79 of the Act, but the payment made on that account arises on account of the benefit earned by the employee and is not by way of remuneration. The concept of leave with wages as envisaged by the provisions of section 79 cannot be included in remuneration within the meaning of the term ‘wages in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act. Under the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 79 of the Factories Act the number of times for which leave may be taken during any year shall not exceed three. Thus, although the employee has worked for the requisite period during the past year, his right to enjoy the benefit due to him to get leave with wages cannot be exercised by him for more than three times during any year. 9. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the phrase leave with wages in sections 79 and 80 of the Factories, Act shows that the wages to be paid during the leave period are to be considered as wages. Merely because the word wages has been used in describing the leave benefits to which an employee is entitled, it cannot be said that such an expression would also be deemed to fulfil the requirement of wages contained in section 2 (22) of the Insurance Act. The Factories Act itself does not define the expression leave with wages or the word wages. The provisions only mean that the employee would be entitled to get certain amounts for the leave period although he does not render any services to the employer during such period. 10. Turning to the provisions of the Insurance Act itself, it is worthwhile referring to the Explanation contained in section 41 of the Act. The Explanation specifically provides that "for the purpose of sections 40 and 41, wages shall be deemed to include payment to one employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out or legal strike". If the Legislature intended that the definition of the word "wages" in section 2 (22) should also include the payment made to the employee in respect of the leave period, there was no need whatsoever for enacting such an Explanation to section 41. The inclusion of the Explanation for the, purposes of sections 40 and 41 of the Act would indicate that the payment for the period of the authorised leave is not wages within the meaning of the definition of the word wages in section 2 (22) This Explanation fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in M/s. Braithwaite and Co. The inclusion of the Explanation for the, purposes of sections 40 and 41 of the Act would indicate that the payment for the period of the authorised leave is not wages within the meaning of the definition of the word wages in section 2 (22) This Explanation fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in M/s. Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. v. The Employees Stale Insurance Corporation3 wherein it is observed as follows:- "The Explanation lays down that for the purposes of sections 40 and 41, wages shall be deemed to include payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out or legal strike. It appears to us that the High Court committed an error in applying this legal fiction, which was meant for sections 40 and 41 of the Act only, and extending it to the definition of wages, when dealing with the question of payment in the nature of Inam under the Scheme started by the appellant. The fiction in the Explanation was a very limited one and it only laid down that wages were to be deemed to include payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out or legal strike. It did not lay down that other payments made to an employee under other circumstances were also to be deemed to be wages. A legal fiction is adopted in law for a limited and definite purpose only and there is no justification for extending it beyond the purpose for which the legislature adopted it. In the Bengal Immunities Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar4 this Court, dealing with the Explanation to Article 286 (I) of the Constitution, as it existed before 11th September, 1956, held:- Whichever view is taken of the Explanation, it should be limited to the purpose the Constitution Makers had in view when they incorporated it in clause I. It is quite obvious that it created a legal fiction. Legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose-Applying the same principle, who have to hold that the Explanation to section 11 is not to be utilized for interpreting the general definition of wages given in. Legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose-Applying the same principle, who have to hold that the Explanation to section 11 is not to be utilized for interpreting the general definition of wages given in. section 2(22) of the Act and is to be taken into account only when the word wages requires interpretation for purposes of sections 40 and 41 of the Act." It would thus appear that the explanation to section 41 was incorporated to introduce a fiction for the purpose of sections 40 and 41. 11. Sections 40 and 41 deal with the rights of the principal employer to recover from the employee the employees contribution by deduction from his wages as well as to recover contribution from immediate employer either by deduction from any amount payable to him by the principal employer under any contract, or as a debt payable by the immediate employer. Sub-section (2) of section 41 also provides that the immediate employer is also entitled to recover the employees contribution from the employee employed by or through him by deduction from wages. The explanation has been included to serve the purpose of conferring a right on the employer to recover the employees contribution paid by the employer on behalf of the employee even from the amount which the employer is liable to pay to the employee towards the authorised leave, lock-out or legal strike. We may also refer to the provisions of Explanation III contained in Schedule 1 of the Insurance Act which provides that "Except as provided by regulations, wages, pay, salaries or allowances paid in respect of any period of leave or holidays other than the weekly holidays shall not be taken into account in calculating wages. This is consistent with the definition of "wages" contained in section 2 (22) of the Act. This Explanation clearly provides that it is only when a regulation is framed by the Corporation under section 97 of the Act that the payments made in respect of the period of leave can be taken into account for computing the contribution of the employer or the employee under section 39 of the Act. It is urged by Mr. Hardas that the Explanation to section 41 has been incorporated because of the Explanation III provided to Schedule 1 of the Act. It is urged by Mr. Hardas that the Explanation to section 41 has been incorporated because of the Explanation III provided to Schedule 1 of the Act. According to him if Explanation III was not provided, the Legislature would not have incorporated the Explanation in section 41 of the Act. It is also urged by him that the fact that Explanation III which is incorporated in Schedule 1 shows that the definition contained in section 2 (22) is wider and the Legislature has restricted its implications by providing Explanation III. We do not see any force in this submission. Schedule 1 is principally intended for the purpose of computation of the contributions to be paid by the employer and the employee for the purposes of section 39 of the Act. As the provision is intended for the purposes of calculation of the contribution respectively payable by the employer and the employee, the Explanation only indicates what should be left out of consideration at the time of such calculation. Far from supporting the contention of Mr. Hardas that this provision indicates that the definition of wages in section 2 (22) was intended to include the payment for the authorised leave, in our view, it goes to show that the provision is made consistent with the meaning of the word "wages" contemplated by the Act. We must not forget that Schedule 1 prescribes the mode of calculation and, therefore, the Legislature has indicated that the payments made in respect of the period of leave should be left out of consideration. 12. It is strongly urged by Mr. Hardas that the provisions of section 73A themselves indicate that for the purposes of computation of the employers special contribution whatever amounts ate paid by him to the employees must he taken into account. He points out that sub-section (3) of section 73A states that the employers special contribution shall consist of such percentage not exceeding 5 per cent of the total wage bill of the employer. Explanation also defines the expression "Total Wage Bill", This expression "Total wage bill" found in sub-section (3) has been defined .in the Explanation to mean the "total wages" which have accrued due to the employees in a factory or establishment in respect of such wage periods as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the Central Government. Explanation also defines the expression "Total Wage Bill", This expression "Total wage bill" found in sub-section (3) has been defined .in the Explanation to mean the "total wages" which have accrued due to the employees in a factory or establishment in respect of such wage periods as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the Central Government. It would thus be clear that what has to be considered is the wages which accrued due to the employees which fall within the definition contained in section 2 (22). The expression total wage bill cannot be construed de hors the provisions of section 2 (22). The mere expression "Total wage bill" therefore cannot advance the contention of Mr. Hardas. Ultimately what has to be found out is whether a particular amount paid by the employer to his employee are wages as defined in section 2 (22) of the Act. In the view we have taken, it cannot be said that the payment made by the company to its employees towards the authorised leave as per the provisions of sections 79 and 81 of the Factories Act are wages as defined by the provisions of section 2 (22) of the Employees State Insurance Act before its amendment by Act No. 14 of 1966 as it is not remuneration. One of the conditions contained in the definition of wages in section 2 (22) is not satisfied. Consequently amounts paid to the employees for the leave period as provided for in section 79 of the Factories Act cannot be considered as wages for the purposes of computation of the employers special contribution under section 73A of the Insurance Act. 13. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Judge of the Insurance Court in both the matters. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.