Judgment :- This appeal is directed against common judgment in I.C. Nos. 73, 76, 79, 80 and 81 of 1983 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Quilon. Of the five cases, relief was granted to the applicant in four cases. E.S.I. Corporation being aggrieved by the relief so granted has filed the appeal. 2. Common respondent herein is a private limited company running cashew factories at various places. Respondent paid holiday wages to the workers. E.S.I. contribution was levied and paid on the holiday wages also during the years 1981 and 1982. Respondent filed five applications before the Employees Insurance Court seeking refund of the contribution so paid on the basis of wages paid for holidays and in the alternative seeking a direction to the Corporation to adjust the amount so paid towards future subscription. Respondent contended that holiday wages are not wages as defined in S.2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and therefore contribution could not have been levied on such wages. The Corporation took the stand that holiday wages are also wages as defined in the Act and contribution was lawfully levied. Relying on a decision of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Nutan Mills v. Employees State Insurance Corporation (1956 (1) L.L.J. 215) and the decision of a learned single judge of Gujarat High Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation v. N.A. Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1981 (2) L.L.J. 145) the E.I. Court accepted the respondent's contention and held that holiday wages are not wages as defined in the Act and contribution could not have been levied thereon and gran ted relief in regard to the contribution so paid for the year 1982 but denied relief for the year 1981 on the ground of limitation. 3. The dispute relates to wages paid for certain 'holidays under the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Holidays Act'). S.3 of the Act as it then stood directed that every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year holidays for 26th January, 15th August, 1st May and three other holidays to be so declared by the 1nspector in consultation with both parties. S.4A states that notwithstanding anything contained in S.3, an employer may, by notice in writing, require any employee to work on any holiday allowed under that Section. S.4A states that notwithstanding anything contained in S.3, an employer may, by notice in writing, require any employee to work on any holiday allowed under that Section. S.5 requires, inter alia, that every employee shall be paid wages for each of the holidays allowed to him under S.3 whether or not the employer has not required, or could not require, him under sub-section (1) of S.4A to work on that holiday. Sub-section (2) requires that where an employee works on any holiday allowed under S.3, he shall be entitled to twice the wages and to avail himself of a substituted holiday on any other day. The disputed wages in this case relate to wages paid for holidays actually allowed to employees under sub-section (1) of S.5 and not wages paid under sub-section (2). 4. The expression "wages" is defined in S.2(22) of the Employees' State 1nsurance Act, 1948. The definition as it originally stood stated 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. It includes other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months; however it does not include any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or under the E.S.I. Act, any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment or any gratuity payable on discharge. Explanation III to para. 2 of Schedule I of the E.S.I. Act as it originally stood stated 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 betaken into account in calculating wages. S.73A is the transitory provision in regard to employer's special contribution to be paid at the rate specified in sub-section (3). S.41 deals with recovery of contribution from immediate employer. The Section originally contained an explanation stating that for the purpose of Ss.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. 5. Some of the above provisions have undergone changes by amendments to E.S.I. Act. S.41 deals with recovery of contribution from immediate employer. The Section originally contained an explanation stating that for the purpose of Ss.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. 5. Some of the above provisions have undergone changes by amendments to E.S.I. Act. The definition of "wages" as it stands at present specifically includes any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or lay-off. Consequently Explanation to S.41 has been omitted. So also the provisions in the first schedule to the Act have been omitted. 6. As observed by the Supreme Court in B.M. Lakshmanamurthy v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1974) 4 S. C.C. 365) the Act is a beneficial piece of social security legislation in the interest of labour in factories and provisions of the Act will have to be construed with that end in view to promote the scheme and avoid the mischief. The Supreme Court in M/s. Harihar Polyfibres v. Regl. Director, E.S.I. Corporation (AIR 1984 S.C.1680) observed that the Act is a welfare legislation and the definition of "wages" is designedly wide and any ambiguous expression should receive a beneficent construction. 7. Wages means all remuneration paid or payable if the terms of the contract of employment express or implied were fulfilled. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway v. Mahadeo Raghoo (AIR 1955 S.C. 295) that "Shorn of all verbiage, "wages" are remuneration payable by an employer to his employee for services rendered according to the terms of the contract between them". It may be noticed that the term soft he contract need not be express; they could be implied also as stated in the definition. The Supreme Court has observed in Balasubrahmanya Rajaram v. B.C. Patil and others ( A.I.R.1958 S.C. 518) that wages means all remuneration and remuneration is only a more formal version of payment and payment is a recompense for service rendered. The Supreme Court in Accountant General v. N. Bakshi (AIR 1962 S.C. 505) observed that "The expression 'remuneration' in its ordinary connotation means reward, recompense, pay, wages or salary for services rendered." Justice Blackburn in R. v. Postmaster General (1876) 1 QBD 658) stated: "I think the word 'remuneration means a quid pro quo. The Supreme Court in Accountant General v. N. Bakshi (AIR 1962 S.C. 505) observed that "The expression 'remuneration' in its ordinary connotation means reward, recompense, pay, wages or salary for services rendered." Justice Blackburn in R. v. Postmaster General (1876) 1 QBD 658) stated: "I think the word 'remuneration means a quid pro quo. If a man gives his services, whatever consideration he gets for giving his services seems to me a remuneration for them". Section 2 (22) of the E.S.I. Act mentions "if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled". There may be express terms in the contract entered into between the employer and the employee at the commencement of the contract. Even at that time several of the terms may be implied. Terms of agreements entered into between the employer and employees, provisions of statutes enacted for the benefit of employees - all these will be regarded as implied terms of the contract, as long as they are enforceable in law. Support for this view can be sought from the observations of the Supreme Court in Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway v: Mahadeo Raghoo (AIR 1955 S.C. 295) to the following effect: "In our opinion, it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the rules which must be included fn the terms of contract between the employer and the employee contemplate that" While wages are remuneration or recompense for* services rendered they need not necessarily be in every case for services rendered on the particular day. 8. The Supreme Court in H.L. Mehra v. Union of India and others (1974 (4) S.C.C. 396) had to deal with a case of person under suspension under the Central Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1965. The Supreme Court observed that when an order of suspension is made against a government servant pending an enquiry into his conduct, the relationship of master and servant does not come to an end. He is only suspended from performing the duties of his office. The Supreme Court observed that when an order of suspension is made against a government servant pending an enquiry into his conduct, the relationship of master and servant does not come to an end. He is only suspended from performing the duties of his office. Government issues direction for-bidding the government servant from doing the work which he was required to do under the terms of the contract of service or the statute or rules governing his conditions of service, at the same time keeping in force the relationship of master and servant and as such he would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension unless there is some provision in the statute or rules governing his conditions of service which provides for withholding of such remuneration. & 9. When an employee is under the terms of a valid statute entitled to be allowed a holiday and to be paid wages for that holiday, that provision in the statute becomes part of his conditions of service and it cannot be said that what he is paid is not wages since he has not rendered service on the particular day. He is entitled to that right by virtue of the fact that he has contracted to render services and has rendered services on other days. As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in Sreedharan Nair v. Sanku Sreedharan & others (1969 (1) L.L.J. 647) if bonus is made payable in return of service rendered it has to be regarded as wages. This of course is subject to the conditions that bonus must be payable as of right and not merely as ex gratia or in some other form. See M/s Braithwaite and Co. (India) Ltd, v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (AIR 1968 S.C. 413) and Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. (AIR 1986 S.C. 237). If the employee is entitled to a holiday and entitled to be paid wages for the holiday in fulfillment of the terms pf contract, express or implied, wages so paid must be regarded as wages as defined in S.2(22). 10. In the present case employees are entitled to holiday by virtue of the Holidays Act and they are entitled to be paid wages for those holidays. 10. In the present case employees are entitled to holiday by virtue of the Holidays Act and they are entitled to be paid wages for those holidays. In other words, even though they did not work on the particular days they are entitled to avail the holiday and to be paid wages for those holidays by virtue of the implied terms of the contract and as such wages paid for the holidays are wages as defined. 11. Reliance placed by the Insurance Court on the decision of a learned single judge of Gujarat High Court in Regl. Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. A/A Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1981 (2) L.L.J. 145) cannot be justified since the decision has been reversed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the decision in E.S.I. Corporation v. New Asarwa Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1984) 64 F.J.R. 367). Our attention has been invited to two other direct decisions on the point. One is noticed at page 187 of Compendium of Case Law issued by the Director General of E.S.I. Corporation in 1986. The reference is to a decision of the Bombay High Court holding that holiday compensation paid to employees is wages as defined in S.2(22). The Bombay High Court in Lai and Company v. Kulkarni (1968) 2 L.LJ. 518) held that wages for weekly holidays payable under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act are wages within the meaning of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. These two direct decisions support our view. No other direct authority has been placed before us which will support the view taken by the Employees Insurance Court. 12. Our attention has been invited to a number of other decisions which do not have any direct bearing on the question in controversy in this case. We will briefly refer to the same. 1n Nutan Mills v. E.S.I. Corporation (AIR 1956 Bom. 336) and Anusuyabai Vithal v. Mehta (1959 (2) L.L.J. 742) the view taken is that lay-off compensation is not wages. Payment made under Inam Scheme which is voluntary and gratuitous and liable to be withdrawn at any moment by the employer has been held to be not wages in Mis. Braithwaite and Co. (India) Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation (AIR 1968 S.C. 413). Prior to the amendment of 1966, payment made for authorised leave has been held to be not wages by Bombay High Court in Asst.Regl. Braithwaite and Co. (India) Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation (AIR 1968 S.C. 413). Prior to the amendment of 1966, payment made for authorised leave has been held to be not wages by Bombay High Court in Asst.Regl. Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. (1975 Lab. I.C. 84) and Asst. Regl. Director v. Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. (AIR 1991 S.C. 314). Right to passage for an ICS Officer has been held to be remuneration in Accountant General v. N. Bakshi (AIR 1962 SC 505). Statutory bonus has been held to be wages in Sreedharan Nair v. Sanku Sreedharan and others (1969 (1) L.L.J. 647). Ex gratia bonus has been held to be not wages in Regl. Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. (AIR 1986 S.C. 237). Bonus paid under industrial award and not by virtue of contract or by statute is held to be not wages in Balasubrahmanya Rajaram v. B.C. Patil and others (AIR 1958 S.C. 518). This decision observes that if bonus is paid as per contract or by statute it should be regarded as wages. House rent allowance has been held to be not wages for the purpose of Payment of Wages Act in Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway v. Mahadeo Raghoo and another (AIR 1955 S.C. 295). It has been noticed in that case that the Rules allowing allowance do not require the allowance to be paid uniformly and compulsorily to all employees. This view has been asserted once again by the Supreme Court in M/s. Harihar Polyfibres v. Regl. Director E.S.I. Corporation (AIR 1984 S.C.1680). Thus it can be seen that the general trend of authority is in favour of the view taken by us. 13. In this view we reverse the decision of Employees Insurance Court and dismiss all the applications filed by the employer. The appeal is allowed with costs.