( 1. ) DAYS has already been condoned by this Court in L. P. A. No. 366 of 2001 on 8-8-2002. For the same reasons, the delay of 7 days is also condoned in L. P. A. No. 367 of 2001. The M (C) filed by appellant for condonation of delay stands disposed of.

( 2. ) SINCE common question of law and fact arc involved in both the appeals, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3. ) RESPONDENTS/employees of the appellant Company had sought voluntary retirement. They were paid their retiral benefits. However, they were not satisfied with the same on the ground that while calculating the payment of gratuity the amount of incentive bonus said to have been earned by them, was not included. All the employees, 24 in number, moved separate applications before the Competent Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for payment of incentive bonus or production bonus to them. ( 4. ) ON being noticed by the Competent Authority, the appellant herein appeared and opposed the prayer of the employees mainly on the ground that incentive bonus can not be included in wages as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act, thus the employees would not be entitled to receive the same. The appellant also raised further plea of limitation that the applications have been filed much after the expiry of period of limitation. On these two preliminary grounds the contention was that the applications filed by the employees deserve dismissal. The Competent Authority, vide its order dated 31-8-95 rejected the applications of the employees, upholding the objections of the appellant. It held that the applications were barred by limitation and payment of incentive bonus could not have been included and called part of the wages. ( 5. ) BEING dissatisfied with the order passed by the Competent Authority all the employees herein preferred individual appeals to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the matter, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 31-8-95. The Appellate Authority not only condoned the delay but also held that incentive bonus is very much part of wages, hence it is to be included while calculating payment of gratuity. As a necessary consequence there of the appellant/employer was directed to recalculate the amount of gratuity including the amount of incentive bonus in the wages paid to each of the employee and then to pay the difference amount.

( 6. ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the said appellate order preferred a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 25-6-2001 holding therein that incentive bonus would be included in the wages as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act, and therefore, was payable by the appellant to its employees. Learned single Judge has placed reliance on ajudgment of the Supreme Court Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1680. Even though the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the said judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Harihar Polyfibres (supra) was dealing with the wages as defined under the employees State Insurance Act, consequently, it held that incentive bonus is part of the wages. It was further held that though there existed some difference in the definitions of "wages" under Section 2 (22) of the State Insurance Act and that of Section 2 (s) of the Act, with which we are concerned, but held that the difference is not of such a magnitude which would disentitle the respondent employees to claim incentive bonus being part of the wages.

( 7. ) TO understand the question whether the definition of wages as found in Section 2 (22) of the ESI Act can be made applicable to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to reproduce the same hereinabove :-

" (22) "wages" means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an em