L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals are filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act ). All of them are in relation to the same Industrial undertaking. While the Employees State Insurance corporation figures as appellant in C. M. A. Nos. 2960 of 2000 and 35 of 2002, the industry figures as appellant in C. M. A. No. 25 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the employees State Insurance Corporation is referred to as the appellant and the industry is referred to as the respondent. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts may briefly be stated as under: the respondent is an industry undertaking manufacture of various electrical equipments. It is covered by the provisions of the Act. The appellant caused an inspection of the records of the respondent, in the context of making the contribution payable under the Act, and they noticed that contributions payable for the various workers involved in building repairs, were not made. Similarly, no contribution was made on the amount of salary paid as incentive to the employees of the respondent. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 11. 1. 1988 was issued calling upon the respondent to show-cause as to why the amounts indicated therein shall not be recovered. The explanation submitted by the respondent did not appeal to the appellant and a final order was passed. Challenging the same, the respondent filed O. P. No. 199 of 1988 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 3 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 6. 3. 2000, the trial Court held that the respondent is not under obligation to make any contribution in relation to the workers engaged in building repairs. However, it held that the respondent is liable to pay the contribution under the Act on the amount paid as incentive to its employees. The appellant filed C. M. A. No. 35 of 2002, aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court insofar as it set-aside the order demanding the payment of contribution for the workers engaged in building repairs. The respondent, in rum, filed c. M. A. No. 25 of 2001 assailing the order of the Trial Court making it liable to make contribution on the incentives paid to the employees. The respondent, in rum, filed c. M. A. No. 25 of 2001 assailing the order of the Trial Court making it liable to make contribution on the incentives paid to the employees. ( 4 ) IN relation to the period from 1988 to 1990, the appellant noticed that the contribution for the workers engaged in the building repairs was not paid. Proceedings ensued and they too were challenged by the respondent by filing O. P. No. 49 of 1992 before the same Court. Through its judgment dated 10. 7. 2000, the Trial Court absolved the respondent, of its liability to pay the contribution. The same is challenged by the appellant by filing C. M. A. No. 2960 of 2000. ( 5 ) SRI B. G. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing Counsel for the appellant, submits that the building repairs in the respondent- factory were carried out for a very long time and the workers engaged in it are covered by the provisions of the Act. He submits that even if the work was done through a contract, the owner is under obligation to make the contribution in respect of the employees engaged in that work, as long as it related to the premises of such owner. He attempts to sustain the finding of the Trial Court to the effect that contribution is liable to be made for the incentives extended to the employees of the respondent. He submits that the definition of wages under sub-section (22) of Section 2 of the Act is too wide and covers the incentives, which are treated as additional pay. ( 6 ) SRI B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the Trial Court discussed the matter in relation to the workers engaged in building repairs from the proper perspective and that no interference is called for. He submits that the Trial Court maintained a clear distinction between contract for work and contract of work and it a ccords with the settled principles of law. As regards the fastening of lability for the incentives, learned Counsel submits that even assuming that they do not fit into the definition of wages under Section 2 (22) of the Act, for the reason that the incentives were paid at very irregular staggered intervals and, never in an interval of two months. He placed reliance upon some judgments of the Supreme Court, in support of his contention. He placed reliance upon some judgments of the Supreme Court, in support of his contention. ( 7 ) THE first aspect relates to the liability of the respondent to pay contribution for the employees, engaged in building repairs. It is not in dispute that the respondent caused extensive repairs to the buildings of its factory. It engaged services of a contractor for this purpose. Its claim that it did not employ any worker, for this purpose, remains undisputed. The word employee is defined under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act. It takes in its fold, the persons directly employed by the principal employer or engaged by him through a different agency known as immediate employer and those whose services are temporarily lent or let out on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom such persons have a contract. A residuary clause is also added, which includes the persons employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment. The important factor, which cuts across all these categories, is that the basic control over such persons shall be that of the employer. The mode of employment or the tenure are not important. ( 8 ) REPAIR to buildings, by its very nature, is casual and occasional. Still, if such a work is attended to by employees directly appointed by the employer, or engaged by him through any other agency, his liability to make the contribution gets attracted, subjected, however, to other conditions. Where, however, the work, as such, is entrusted to a different agency, the employer or owner of the building cannot be said to have either directly or indirectly employed the persons engaged in such a repair work. In the instant case, it was found that the respondent did not engage the workers for repairs directly or indirectly, nor did he hold any control over them. The Trial Court has undertaken extensive discussion on this aspect with reference to the decided cases and relevant provisions of law. This Court is not convinced to disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court. Hence, C. M. A. Nos. 2960 of 2000 and 35 of 2002 do not merit any consideration. ( 9 ) NOW remains the question as to whether contribution is required to be made on the amount paid as incentive to the employees. This Court is not convinced to disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court. Hence, C. M. A. Nos. 2960 of 2000 and 35 of 2002 do not merit any consideration. ( 9 ) NOW remains the question as to whether contribution is required to be made on the amount paid as incentive to the employees. ( 10 ) THE word wages is defined under sub-section (22) of Section 2 of the Act. It reads as under:" 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 [any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorized leave, lock out, strike which is not illegal or lay-off and] other additional remuneration, if any [paid at intervals not exceeding two months], but does not include (a) any contribution 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 the discharge;"this provision is the result of an amendment through Act 44 of 1966. Before that, its scope was limited, and it did not include the amounts payable for the period of authorized leave, additional remuneration etc. , within the scope of wages for the purpose of calculating the contribution. Incentive is an amount, which, the employer offers to its workers, to encourage them to exhibit excessive efficiency or to produce more than what is ordinarily expected of them. Such incentive is offered mostly where the work can be assessed in terms of output. It is true that the incentive answers the description of "additional remuneration". However, the definition of wages takes in its fold, only such additional remuneration as is paid at intervals not exceeding two months. In the present case, the respondent pleaded that the incentive offered to the employees was for a limited period and was paid at staggered intervals, which exceeded two months. This assertion was not denied by the appellant. Therefore, the incentive cannot be treated as part of wages. ( 11 ) IN Braithwaite and Co. In the present case, the respondent pleaded that the incentive offered to the employees was for a limited period and was paid at staggered intervals, which exceeded two months. This assertion was not denied by the appellant. Therefore, the incentive cannot be treated as part of wages. ( 11 ) IN Braithwaite and Co. v. E. S. I. Corporation, AIR 1968 SC 413 , the supreme Court held that the incentive paid under "inams scheme", cannot be treated as part of wages and thereby, the employer is not under obligation to pay contribution on such amount. The basis for the demand on such amount was the fiction contained in explanation to Section 41. The explanation, has since been omitted under Act No. 44 of 1996 and the fiction contemplated under it is specifically incorporated in the definition of wages. Further, recently in Whirlpool of india Ltd. v. E. S. I. C. , 2000 (3) ALD 33 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 1190 , it was held that the incentives do not form part of wages . The relevant observation of the Supreme court reads as under:"learned Counsel for the respondent made a feeble attempt to contend that the payment in the present case would fall within the first part of definition of wages as there is an implied contract for payment of the said amount. As already noticed, none of the Courts has held that the amount in question was paid or was payable on fulfillment of terms of contract of employment. Further, learned Counsel fairly conceded that the payment under the scheme cannot be termed a payment under settlement as contemplated by Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It also cannot be held that the payment in question under the scheme would amount to a condition of service requiring compliance of Section 9a 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 . "the ratio laid down by the Supreme court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The incentive in question in this case cannot be said to have been offered as a step in fulfillment of terms of contract. It is outside the contract of employment. Though the Trial Court referred this decision, it has not taken into account, the ratio laid down therein. The incentive in question in this case cannot be said to have been offered as a step in fulfillment of terms of contract. It is outside the contract of employment. Though the Trial Court referred this decision, it has not taken into account, the ratio laid down therein. I therefore, the order of the Trial Court, insofar as it holds that the respondent is liable to make contribution for the amount paid as incentive, cannot be sustained. Hence, c. M. A. No. 25 of 200 deserves to be allowed. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, CMA nos. 2960 of 2000, 35 of 2002 are dismissed and CMA No. 25 of 2001 is allowed. No order as to costs.