JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHPANDE, J.:---Some time in early 1975 the Poona Municipal Corporation celebrated its Silver Jubilee and on account of the said Silver Jubilee Celebrations, the Corporation decided to make a gift or a present of a sum of Rs. 101/- to its existing employees and a sum of Rs. 51/- to its retired employees and pensioners. 2. On the 14th of February, 1975 a resolution was passed whereby sanction was accorded to the payment of an amount of Rs. 101/- to each of the employees of the Corporation who were in service on the 15th of February, 1975 and a sum of Rs. 51/- to each of the retired Municipal servants. 3. As the payment required the sanction of the State Government, the requisite sanction was applied for and obtained. By a letter dated the 14th of March, 1975 the Municipal Commissioner was informed that the Government had decided not to object to the proposal of the Poona Municipal Corporation to pay the said amounts on the understanding that this sanction should not be quoted as a precedent on future occasions. 4. It would appear that the payments were made. But soon thereafter it seems to have occurred to the Director of Accounts and Treasuries and Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, that even though there was no objection to the payments as contemplated by the Poona Municipal Corporation, the relevant monies attracted the provisions of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said Officer seemed to be of the view that the payments which had been made were essentially in the nature of a bonus, which he described as "Silver Jubilee Bonus" and, according to him, these payments were covered by the definition of "wages" as appearing in the Act. He, therefore, wrote a letter to the Commissioner of the Poona Municipal Corporation on the 28th of April, 1975 directing that the amounts which had already been disbursed by the Corporation should be recovered from the emoluments of the concerned employees and these should be credited as required by the Act. 5. It requires to be noticed that this direction by the Government appears to have been restricted only to the amount of Rs. 101/- given to the serving employees of the Poona Municipal Corporation, and nothing was said about the sum of Rs. 5. It requires to be noticed that this direction by the Government appears to have been restricted only to the amount of Rs. 101/- given to the serving employees of the Poona Municipal Corporation, and nothing was said about the sum of Rs. 51/- which had been paid to the retired employees of the Poona Municipal Corporation. It is suggested that no question about compulsory deposit of those amounts arose and that is why there is no reference to those payments. Be that as it may. 6. Pursuant to the direction of the Government, efforts were made by the Corporation to recover the amounts which had already been paid and it would appear that certain amounts were in fact recovered by deducting them from the amounts payable to the several employees. The office circular in that behalf for recovery of the amount of Rs. 101/- paid to the employees is dated the 12th of May, 1975. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come to Court and their grievance is that the payments which were made to the employees of the Corporation were not payments which would fall under the definition of "wages" under the Act. 7. Dr. R.S. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, contends that if the relevant definitions are looked into, then it would at once appear that the amount of Rs. 101/- paid to each of the employees of the Corporation does not fall within the definition of wage, and, therefore, the provisions of the Act in so far as the deposit and repayment is concerned will not be attracted. 8. Mr. A.C. Agarwal, who appears for the respondent-Corporation, has stated that the Corporation will submit to the orders of Court. However, the Union or India have applied and on their request been made a party to the petition and Mr. M.V. Paranjpe, who appears for the Union of India, has sought to contend that the relevant payment of Rs. 101/- to each of the Corporation employees is a "wages" and, that, therefore, the provisions of the Act are applicable and the compulsory deposit must be made. 9. Mr. Paranjpes submissions were threefold. His first submission was that even thought the amount has been described as a gift or a present or in Marathi "bhet", the nomenclature used is immaterial, if in substance the amount paid represents a wage. 9. Mr. Paranjpes submissions were threefold. His first submission was that even thought the amount has been described as a gift or a present or in Marathi "bhet", the nomenclature used is immaterial, if in substance the amount paid represents a wage. His second submission was that section 2(o) of the Act by its phraseology covers the payment made by the Poona Municipal Corporation. And his third argument was that in any event, sub-clause (iii) of section 2(o) would be attracted because the amount paid is an ex gratia payment equal to bonus. 10. Now the relevant portion of the definition relating to wages reads as follows :--- "(o) "Wages" means all remunerations (whether by way of salary, allowances, or otherwise) expressed, or capable of being expressed, in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, by payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes :--- (i) any remuneration payable under any agreement, or settlement between the parties or any award, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority; (ii) any remuneration in which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period; (iii) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment, including bonus, whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise; (iv) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme framed under any for the time being in force; (v) any allowance paid for, house accommodation, or where house accommodation is provided, the value of such accommodation, and the value of electricity or water, or both, supplied, and the value of medical attendance, or other amenity; *** *** ***" 11. It is not necessary to set out the definition of "additional wages" because "additional wages" are stated to mean wages, over and above the wages payable to an employee" 12. Mr. Paranjpes basic argument was that the word "wages", which is defined in the Act, means "all remunerations", and, according to him, "remuneration" in term conveyed the idea that what was paid was in the nature of reward or payment for work done. He referred to Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 2324 to show that the word "remuneration" was a wider term than "salary" and that "remuneration" means a quid pro quo. He referred to Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 2324 to show that the word "remuneration" was a wider term than "salary" and that "remuneration" means a quid pro quo. Now this statement in Strouds Judicial Dictionary is taken from a judgment of Elackburn, J. in (R.V. Postmaster-General)1, 1 Q.B.D. 663 at 664. This is what the learned Judge observed :--- "Remuneration means a quid pro quo. Whatever consideration a person gets for giving his services, seems to me a remuneration for them. Consequently, if a person was in receipt of a payment or of a percentage, or any kind of payment which would not be an actual money payment, the amount he would receive annually in respect of this would be "remuneration." According to Mr. Paranjpe, there were two factors in the matter under consideration (1) that payment was made on the completion to the Silver Jubilee of the Poona Municipal Corporation, and (2) that the payment had been made to the present and the past employees of the Corporation. This, according to him, meant that the payment was for services already rendered. 13. Now, there seems to be little doubt that remuneration paid to an employee is usually for work done by him. But we are not really concerned with this general aspect of the matter. What we have to find out is whether this particular payment by way of a present or a gift is covered by the definition of "wages" in the Act. In our view, it is not so covered and this is clear if the phraseology of the definition is noticed. 14. First of all, it is clear that "wages", according to the definition, means all remuneration which would be payable if the terms of employment express or implied were fulfilled. In other words, "wages" are such payments, whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise, which become payable on the fulfilment by the employee of the terms of the employment. Therefore, they have a relation to the work done by him. It is obvious that the fulfilment of the terms of the employment would always include the obligation of the employee to do the work for which he was employed. Now the payment of Rs. 101/- to the employees of the Corporation has no such nexus. Therefore, they have a relation to the work done by him. It is obvious that the fulfilment of the terms of the employment would always include the obligation of the employee to do the work for which he was employed. Now the payment of Rs. 101/- to the employees of the Corporation has no such nexus. It was an amount paid as a gift, as a part of the festivities connected with the Silver Jubilee Celebration of the Corporation. The gift may well have taken the form of sweetmeats or other articles. It is difficult to appreciate how it can be said that the amount of Rs. 101/- was payable only if the terms of payment were fulfilled. 15. Now, to examine the definition of word "wages" further, it is to be noticed that sub-clause (1) and (ii) section 2(o) of the Act cannot apply because there is no question of any agreement or settlement or award or decree, nor is the payment in respect of either overtime, holidays or leave period. 16. But, Mr. Paranjpe has argued that the payment of Rs. 101/- to the employees could fall under sub-clause (iii) of section 2(o) of the Act, because it was in the nature of a bonus. The contention is not tenable, firstly because sub-clause (iii) speak of "any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment". There is no question of the gift of Rs. 101/- having become payable under the terms of employment. But Mr. Paranjpe says that in the inclusive definition there is further included "bonus", whether under a scheme of profit-sharing or otherwise. According to Mr. Paranjpe, the sum of Rs. 101/- is a bonus. We see no warrant for this contention. First of all, as Mr. Paranjpe himself pointed out by referring to Strouds Judicial Dictionary Fourth Edition at page 306, the meaning of the word "bonus" as appearing in the New English Dictionary, is "a boon, or gift over and above what is normally due as remuneration to the receiver, and what is, therefore, something wholly to the good". There can be little doubt that the word "bonus" as used in sub-clause (iii) of section 2(o) of the Act does not refer to boon or a gift of this nature. There can be little doubt that the word "bonus" as used in sub-clause (iii) of section 2(o) of the Act does not refer to boon or a gift of this nature. It refers to the concept of bonus as laid down in the Industrial law in this country, which is an additional payment by way of a wage, whether it is under a scheme of profit-sharing or of any other nature, an example of which may be incentive bonus. The amount of Rs. 101/- which was paid at the time of the Silver Jubilee Celebrations by the Corporation to its employees is, in our view, wholly unconnected with the work that the employee had to do under the terms of his employment and, therefore, whether the amount of Rs. 101/- was paid in cash or in kind, it would not fall within the definition of the word "wages" under the Act. 17. If that is the correct view of the matter, then the Act would not apply and we must hold that the view expressed that the amounts so paid are covered by the Act is misconceived. 18. In the result, the petition must be allowed and the rule made absolute in terms of prayers (a) to (d). The petitioners will get their cost from the Union of India, which has been made a party to this petition. Special Civil Application No. 1328 of 1975 : 19. Dr. R.S. Kulkarni, appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. C.R. Dalvi, appearing for the Poona Municipal Corporation, state that the point involved in this petition is the same as considered in Special Civil Application No. 1215 of 1975. In this view of the matter, the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 1215 of 1975 will govern this Application also. 20. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) to (d) and the petitioners will get their costs from the Union of India, which was made a party to this petition also. -----