JUDGMENT 1. - In these two special appeals, the challenge is to the order dated July 3, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Employees Federation (in short RIICO Employees Union), quashing the orders issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises (appellant in Special Appeal No. 1365 of 1997) limiting the maximum limit of salary for the purposes of calculation of the incentive bonus to all the employees of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (appellant in Special Appeal No. 1306 of 1997). 2. The crux of the matter is that the appellant RIICO in appreciation of hard work done by the employees sanctioned payment of monetary incentive equal to 5% of the salary/wages for the year 1979-80 vide order dated November 1, 1980. Upto the year 1991 these monetary incentives were sanctioned from time to time and for the year 1988-89, the incentive was @ 11.67% of the salary without any ceiling limit of salary. The Rajasthan Bureau of Public Enterprises vide letters dated December 23, 1985 and October 18, 1989 fixed the upper ceiling limit in the salary for monetary incentive and ex-gratia payment. It was provided in these two orders that the payment of bonus or ex-gratia may be allowed to employees drawing salary exceeding Rs. 2500 per months as a deviation from the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act on clearance by the BPE, the amount of bonus/exgratia shall be calculated as if the salary or wages were Rs. 1600 per month. These two orders were challenged in the writ petition filed by the RIICO Employees Union. 3. The appellant RIICO filed reply to the writ petition stating therein that the RIICO Employees Union cannot be permitted to challenge the said orders after lapse of so many years. The RIICO employees Union deliberately made misstatement of facts by wrongly stating that upper salary/wages ceiling was introduced from the year 1988-89 where the true and correct fact is that the upper salary ceiling limit was introduced from the financial year 1985-86. The concept of upper age limit was operative for the last about eight years and which has been duly accepted by the employees cannot be permitted to be challenged in such writ petition. The concept of upper age limit was operative for the last about eight years and which has been duly accepted by the employees cannot be permitted to be challenged in such writ petition. The concept of upper salary ceiling limit for monetary incentive and exgratia payment is legal, lawful and valid and is in accordance with the concept of equality and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The appellant Bureau also filed separate reply to the writ petition reiterating the facts stated by the RIICO. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments allowed the writ petition filed by the RIICO employees Union on the basis of the judgment of this in R.F.C. Officers Association v. R.F.C. and Anr., 1989 (1) RLR 82 and Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal, 49 FJR 391 . 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the opinion that ex-gratia payment has nothing to do with the bonus, since ex-gratia payment cannot be varied- or reduced, whereas term bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act may vary from time to time. Bonus is assessed on the profit, working and other allied matters. It is a deferred payment of wages. The Division Bench of this in R.F.C. Officers Association v. R.F.C. & Anr. (Supra) indicated that ex-gratia payment may not be bonus and the payment made to the officers was an integral part of the emoluments and the emoluments cannot be reduced by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation under the directions of the State Government. 7. In the instant case the Bureau of State Enterprises which had been constituted to suggest the guidelines, could not have issued a binding executive instructions to the industrial establishments in derogation to the interest of the working class. Because the Bureau was established to suggest certain guidelines for the uniformity. It was not to be interpreted as to take away the right of the working class by limiting the incentive bonus to that of the salary limit. Undeniably the incentive bonus was being paid without any limit on the salary to all the employees and even to those employees whose salary is exceeding the limit. 8. The orders Annexure 10 and 11 issued by the Bureau of State Enterprises did infringe the right of the employees. Undeniably the incentive bonus was being paid without any limit on the salary to all the employees and even to those employees whose salary is exceeding the limit. 8. The orders Annexure 10 and 11 issued by the Bureau of State Enterprises did infringe the right of the employees. Any guidelines issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises pre-judicially affecting the rights of the employees could not be held to be legal in the eyes of law nor the Bureau had any authority to issue such executive instructions. 9. That takes us to the another submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation that since limiting the maximum limit of salary for the purpose of calculation of incentive bonus was a policy decision, this could not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. Section 39 of the Rajasthan Financial Act 1951 provides that the Board shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Govt. The word or phrase 'policy' does not include the fixation of emoluments. The State Government had a limited power only in the matters pertaining the running of the business. To decide the fixation of grades, creation of the posts and the matter relating to emoluments, pension gratuity etc. could not be said to be a policy matter. We also agree with the aforequoted interpretation. In our opinion annexures 10 and 11 so far as they fix the maximum limit of salary for the purposes of calculation of the incentive bonus are unconstitutional and illegal and were rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. 11. For these reasons, the appeals being devoid of merit stand dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******