M.M. Ismail, C.J.
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., dated 17th December, 1979, dismissing Writ Petition No. 6083 of 1979 filed by the appellant herein. As the order of the learned Judge itself points out, the only point that was urged before him was whether incentive wages formed part of 'wages' as defined in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The definition of the term 'wages' as contained in S. 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, reads as follows :
'Wages' means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance, but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance'.
Thus, it it clear that the definition excludes only bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance and not incentive wages. Consequently, reading the definition as it is, it will mean that incentive wages are included in the definition of 'wages' as contained in S. 2(s) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that with reference to the definition of the term 'basic wages' as contained in the Employees' Provident Funds Act, the Supreme Court has held that incentive wages would be covered by the expression 'bonus'. The learned Judge has stated that the definitions are not in pari materia for the simple reason that the definition in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is of the term 'wages', while the definition in the Employees' Provident Funds Act is admittedly of the term 'basic wages' and equally, admitted there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that whatever that may be, in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court the word 'bonus' occurring in S. 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, must be deemed to include incentive wages also. We are unable to accept this argument for the simple reason that admittedly the appellant is paying to its employees bonus and incentive wages separately, and in such a context, we not hold that the expression 'bonus' will over incentive wages. The learned Judge also pointed out, independent of all the above considerations, that the amount involved in this case is only Rs. 171 which does not call for consideration in this Court.
3. Having regard to all the above circumstances, we see no justification whatever to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.