B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE case of the applicant-company is that they are the manufacturers of garments employing about 250 workmen and paying wages as per the terms of the contract of employment and that the ESI contributions are paid regularly. It is further stated that in order to promote cordial employee-employer relationship, the respondent formulated a scheme known as 'quality Incentive Scheme' as per which the incentive amount is calculated and paid to the concerned workmen once in three months. It is also stated that it is purely voluntary, quality and quantity oriented and that the employer has the right to withdraw the scheme without assigning any reasons and therefore, it is not part of wages. It is also stated that the respondent-Corporation has called upon the applicant to pay contribution on the quality incentive and the applicant made the payments under protest. Therefore, the applicant prayed for a direction to the appellant herein for the refund of the amount collected as a contribution towards quality incentive as the same does not constitute wages. ( 2 ) SMT. Geethadevi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no evidence is led to show that there is so-called incentive called as "quality Incentive Scheme" and further submitted that it is only a make believe affair in order to avoid contribution. According to her, this 'quality Incentive Scheme' does not come under the purview of 1st part of Section 222. As such, it should be construed as wages. As against this, Mr. S. N. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is only the Scheme introduced to get more work from the employees. In other words, it is to induce to get the work in quantity-wise as well as quality-wise, and the Scheme is liable to be withdrawn at anytime. It is submitted that such schemes are introduced to maintain cordial relationship between the employer and employees. In the case of Whirlpool of India limited v. Employees' State Insurance corporation, AIR 2000 SC 1190 : 2000 (3) scc 185 : 2000-I-LLJ-1101 it is stated that. "employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, section 2 (22)-Definition of wages - Unless "production Incentive" falls within those clauses of definition given in Section 2 (22), it cannot be considered as wages -Social legislation required to be interpreted for the benefit of employees - But plain reading of words also cannot be ignored. "employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, section 2 (22)-Definition of wages - Unless "production Incentive" falls within those clauses of definition given in Section 2 (22), it cannot be considered as wages -Social legislation required to be interpreted for the benefit of employees - But plain reading of words also cannot be ignored. Employees of company were given "production incentive" under scheme every quarterly - ESIC claimed contribution adding this as wages - EI Court held incentive is not wages - High Court reversed order - Appeal to Supreme Court by company - Held, payment does not fall within definition of wages". Held: It cannot be held that the payment in question under the scheme would amount to a condition of service requiring compliance of Section 9-A of the industrial Disputes Act, for effecting any change in the conditions of service. The payment thus does not fall within the first part of definition of "wages". ( 3 ) THE appellant thus, does not fall within the I Part of definition of wages. This decision makes it very clear that the company which pays the production incentive cannot be said to be the part and parcel of the wages. The wages paid shall not be inclusive of this incentive. This is paid extra only to maintain the efficiency as well as the quality of the work concerned. Hence, in view of this decision, the submission of Smt. Geetha Devi is unacceptable. In other words, the ESI corporation is not entitled to recover the contribution from the respondent. Hence the following order: in the result, the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .