JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1941, against the order passed by the Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court rejecting the application of the appellant, filed under S. 75(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The appellant has a factory at Khatipura Road, Jaipur, and is engaged in the manufacture of ball-bearings. excel boxes, steel castings and other engineering goods and is covered by the provisions of the Act. The appellant has been regularly paying Employees' State Insurance contribution and also deducting employees' contribution from the wages of the workmen and depositing/paying the same to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on the basis of their regular wages including salaries, excluding the remuneration for overtime work. The appellant received a communication, dated 7 May 1985 from the Secretary, Employers' Association of Rajasthan, that Employees' State Insurance contribution was payable on overtime wages, whereupon, the appellant addressed a letter to the respondent that the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors, Ltd., [1979 - II L. L. N. 52] , has held the Employees' State Insurance contribution was not payable on payment for overtime work, which order has become final because the special leave petition moved by the respondent was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The appellant received a letter.dated 6 June 1985,from the respondent stating that overtime allowance continued to attract contribution under S. 2(22) of the At and that a review petition has been filed in the abovenoted case, to which a reply was sent by the appellant that unless review is allowed, their demand was unjustified. The respondent reiterated its stand in its letter, dated 28 June 1985. The appellant also reiterated its stand in reply, dated 16 July 19,5. But the respondent insisted vide their letter, dated 23 July 1985. Since the Employees' State Insurance Court was not functioning at that time, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court wherein it was directed that the appellant should first approach the Employees' State Insurance Court. The appellant also reiterated its stand in reply, dated 16 July 19,5. But the respondent insisted vide their letter, dated 23 July 1985. Since the Employees' State Insurance Court was not functioning at that time, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court wherein it was directed that the appellant should first approach the Employees' State Insurance Court. Thereupon, on 16 November 1985, the appellant filed an application under S. 75(1)(g) of the Act before the Employees' State Insurance Court, along with a stay petition, which passed the following order : " The Employees' State Insurance Corporation shill not levy contribution on the overtime payments made to its workmen by the petitioner, provided the petitioner furnishes a monthly bank guarantee of Rs. 4,000 in favour of the Tribunal to the effect that in case the petitioner fails the amount would be payable in Court for payment of contribution to the Corporation." The Employees' State Insurance Court framed the following issue : " Whether the payment for overtime work is not ' wages' for the purposes of levying Employees' State Insurance contribution." 3. After framing of issue, the parties did not lead any evidence. The learned Court below after hearing the arguments, rejected the application and hence this appeal has been died. Notice was issued to the respondent and arguments have been heard. The case file of the lower Court has been perused. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Employees' State Insurance Corporation (by Regional Director, West Bengal Region) and others v. Bengal Potteries, Ltd. [1978-I L. L. N. 644] , Hindustan Motors, Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and others [1974-II L. L. N. 52] , (vide supra), where a Division Bench has held as under in Piras. 20 to 22, at pages 58 and 59: "The definition of ' wages' in S. 2(22) is exhaustive. It is clearly stated what is included and what is excluded in the definition. . . The expression ' remuneration which would if the terms of the contract were fulfilled be payable' in this section means no more than remuneration payable under contract between the employer and an employee. . . Payment on account of overtime having once been excluded from wages in S. 2(9), should not be included unless specifically so included by the Legislature in the, definition of wages in S. 2(22). . . " 5. . . Payment on account of overtime having once been excluded from wages in S. 2(9), should not be included unless specifically so included by the Legislature in the, definition of wages in S. 2(22). . . " 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Bata Shoe Company (Private), Ltd. [1986 - I L. L. N. 37] , wherein it has been held that the bonus in the nature of ex gratia payment payable one month after end of each quarter is not included in " wages" as defined under S. 2 (22). 6. He further placed reliance on Hind Art Press, Mangalore v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another [1989 - II L. L. N. 394] , wherein it has been held that special allowance and midday meal allowance paid monthly in terms of settlement, fall within the definition of " wages" but overtime wages do not fall within the definition of " wages" as defined under S. 2 (22). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent his placed reliance on Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad v. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills, Ltd. [1977 - II L. L N. 582] , wherein it has been held that the incentive bonus and the house rent allowance should be included within the definition of " wages" as given in S. 2(22) of the Act. 8. He has further placed reliance on Shivraj Fineart Litho Works, Nigpur v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [1974 - II L. L. N 392] , wherein their Lordships of the Bombay High Court held that the payment made to an employee for overtime work falls within the definition of " wages" under S. 2(22). 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on Mahalaxmi Glass Works (Private), Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [1976 -I L. L. N. 401] , wherein it has been held that bonus paid under incentive scheme amounts to wages within the meaning of S. 2(22). 10. Reliance was also placed on Employees' State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi v Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd. [1976 - II L. L. N. 198] , wherein it his been held that the definition of + wages" including over time payments also and as such the employer is bound to make contribution in respect of overtime payments. 11. 10. Reliance was also placed on Employees' State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi v Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd. [1976 - II L. L. N. 198] , wherein it his been held that the definition of + wages" including over time payments also and as such the employer is bound to make contribution in respect of overtime payments. 11. He further placed reliance on Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works, Ltd., Hyderabad v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [1980 - II L. L. N. 504] , wherein it has been held that wages include overtime allowance paid to employees and as such, the employer is bound to make contribution in respect of overtime payments. 12. He also placed reliance on Harihar Polyfibres v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [1984 - II L. L. N. 747] , wherein their Lordships approved the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills [1977 - II L. L. N. 582] , (vide supra), and held that the term " wages" in S. 2(22) will include house rent allowance, night shift allowance, heat, gas allowance dust allowance and incentive allowance. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Calcutta High Court in National Jute Manufacturers Corporation, Staff Association v. National Jute Manufacturers Corporation, Ltd. [Civil Order No. 11792 (W) of 198, dated 16 December 1985] , wherein the Calcutta High Court, after placing reliance on Harihar Polyfibres case [1984 - II L. L. N. 747] (vide supra), and the judgment in A. P. Paper Mills [1977 - II L. L. N. 582] (vide supra), have held that overtime wages will come within the definition of wages as defined under S. 2(22) of the Act. Their Lordships held that the earlier view of the Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Motors, Lid. case [1979 - IL L. L. N. 52] (wide supra), does not hold good in view of the observations in Harihar Polyfibres case (vide supra). 14. Reliance has also been placed on Bharat Electronics, Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka. Bangalore, and another [1990 - I L. L. N. 1004] , wherein it has been held that the night shift allowance being variable in nature depending on actual performance of work is not includible in the wages for one month to be paid to the workmen, as envisaged under S. 2(rr)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 15. Bangalore, and another [1990 - I L. L. N. 1004] , wherein it has been held that the night shift allowance being variable in nature depending on actual performance of work is not includible in the wages for one month to be paid to the workmen, as envisaged under S. 2(rr)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the record of the case, and the authorities cited before me. 16. Before entering into discussion, it will be profitable to quote S. 2(22) of the Act, as under : "2(22) - 'wage' 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 any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lockout, strike which is not illegal or layoff and 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." 17. Supreme Court, as early as in Braithwaite and Company (India), Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 413] , has held that the inam paid by the employer under a scheme cannot be included within the definition of "wages" because it did not become a term of the contract of employment since payment of inam was not among the original terms of contract of employment, it was paid only as an incentive, if certain specified conditions were fulfilled by the employees and it was dependent upon the employees exceeding the target. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal Potteries, Ltd. [1978 - I L. L. N. 644] , (vide supra), relying on Braithwaite and Company case [A.I.R. 1963 S. C. 413) , (vide supra), did not agree with the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills [1977 - II L. L N. 582] , (vide supra), and held that the bonus payable on extra work by way of reward is not " wages" within the meaning of S. 2(27) of the Act because the payment of incentive bonus depended on the person doing a certain minimum quantity of normal work. An employee his a right to his wages bat not to incentive bonus. The right to incentive bonus depends on performance of minimum percentage of normal workload and gradual increase in such performance of work. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court again in Hindustan Motors, Ltd. case [1979 - II L L. N 52] , (vide supra), relying on Braithwaite and Company (vide supra), dissented from the view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills case (side supra), as also Shivraj Fine art Works [1974-II L. L. N. 392) , (vide supra), held that the remuneration for overtime work cannot be included in the definition of " wages." For coming to this conclusion, their Lordships have considered earlier cases of several High Courts. The definition of 11 wages" in S. 2(22) is quite exhaustive. It clearly states as to what is included and whit is excluded in the definition. If we refer to S 2(9) giving definition of word " employee" and particularly Cl. (b), which runs as under, any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed Rs. 1,000 a month will not be an employee : "2(9) (b) any person so employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed one thousand rupees a month." 18. The Legislature was conscious of the conception of overtime work but it appears that it escaped its notice while defining the word 11 wages" because they have neither included nor excluded in S. 2(22) but we have to take a harmonious construction of the two parts of legislation. The Legislature could not have intended to have two different meanings of the word " wages" in the same statute. The Legislature could not have intended to have two different meanings of the word " wages" in the same statute. The Act is a social and beneficial legislation and if we enlarge the definition of " wages" and include the remuneration of overtime work, some of the employees will be excluded from the definition of the word " employee" as given in S. 2(1)) which will not serve the purpose for which the legislation was enacted. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bata Shoe Company [1986 - I L.L.N. 37] , (vide supra), have also held that the bonus being in the nature of ex gratia payment is not included in the definition of wages given in S. 2 (22). Karnataka High Court also in a recent decision in Hind Art Press [1989-II L. L. N. 394] ,J (vide supra), has agreed with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Motors, Ltd. [1979 - II L.L.N. 52] (vide supra), and has disagreed with the view of the Bombay High Court in Shivraj Fine art Works [1974 - II L. L. N. 392] (vide supra), as well as Delhi High Court in Birla Cotton and Spinning and Weaving Company [1976 - II L.L.N. 198] , (vide supra), as also Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works [1980 - II L.L.N. 504] , (vide supra), and has placed reliance on the views expressed by their Lordships in Bata Shoe Company case (1986 - I L. L. N. 37] , (vide supra). It has been held that remuneration of overtime cannot be included in the definition of " wages" within the meaning of S. 2(22). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in a very recent decision in Bharat Electronics, Ltd. case [1990-1 L.L.N. 1004] ,(vide supra), while considering the definition of wages" as given in S 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which runs as under, have held that the night shift allowance being variable in nature, depending on actual performance of work, cannot be included in wages for one month to be paid to the workman. " Section 2(rr). " Section 2(rr). - 'wages' means all remunerations capable, of being expressed in terms of money which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment, or of work done in such employment and includes- (i) such allowance (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to; (ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food grains or other articles; (iii) any travelling concession ; (iv) any commission payable on the promotion of scales or business or both; but does not include (a) any bonus; paid or (b) any contribution pay able by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman under any law for the time being in force; (c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service." 19. The definition of " wages" in S. 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that given in S. 2 (22) of the Act are almost similar and, therefore, that judgment applies with full force because this payment is not part of the contract and it varies from time to time, depending on as to how much overtime one works. Then, it is not regular. One may do overtime work for some days in a month, then may not get chance to do overtime work for two months and again work for some days. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Motors, Lid. [1979 - 11 L.L.N. 52] (vide supra), and Karnataka High Court in Hind Art Press [1989 - It L.L.N. 394] (vide supra). 20. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the order, dated 9 May 1966, passed by the learned Employees' State insurance Court is set aside and it is held that the remuneration paid for overtime work cannot be included in " wages" as defined in a. 2(22) of the Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******