SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These appeals arise out of a judgment dated 19‑4‑1978 and Order dated 4‑3‑1978 of the Sind High Court. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. The Dawood Cotton Mills Limited one of the appellants (hereinafter mentioned as the Mill), is covered by the provisions contained in the West Pakistan Employees' . Social Security Ordinance (No. X) of 1965. It had introduced a Scheme of Social Security so as to provide benefits to certain employees of concerns like the Mill in this case. In pursuance thereto the Mill was required to register all of their secured workers and pay contribution to the Sind Employees Social Security Institution established under Section 3 of the Ordinance (hereinafter mentioned as the Institution) in respect of the wages paid to them. It came to the notice of the Institution that the Mill had not made contribution in respect of the following payments made to their employees:‑ (1) Conveyance Allowance; (2) Leave encashment; (3) Supplementary payments; and (4) Festival Holidays. Accordingly, contribution was assessed in accordance with Section 22 of the Ordinance and demands in respect thereof were made on the Mill. An appeal was filed by the Mill before the Social Security under Section 59 of the Ordinance wherein an objection was raised against this demand mainly on the ground that these payments did not constitute "wages" as defined in clause (30) of Section 2 of the Ordinance. It was also pleaded that some of the employees drawing more than Rs.20 per day as wages were not covered by the Ordinance. These contentions did not find favour with the appeal Court. The Mill then filed appeal before the High Court which was partly allowed vide impugned judgment dated 19‑4‑1978. Itwas held that the wages of some of the employees having exceeded Rs.20 per day, the Mill was not liable to pay the contribution in regard thereto because "the employees whose wages are more than Rs.20 per day are to be excluded in computing the amount of contribution in view of the aforesaid sub‑section (4) of Section 20 of the Ordinance". Aggrieved by this part of the impugned judgment the Institution filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted to examine whether the Mill was not liable to make contribution in respect of the employees who are covered by the definition of "employee" but the wages being drawn by him exceed Rs.20 per day. The Mill also was aggrieved by the inclusion of certain payments made to the employees which were thought to be not covered by the definition of "wages". Leave to appeal was granted in this behalf to the Mill to examine the scope of the word "wages" as used in the Ordinance. The first mentioned appeal of the Institution is No.76 of 1978 and the appeal of the Mill is No.281 of 1978. We have heard both the learned counsel at some length. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance read as follows: "Section

2. Definition.‑‑ In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them that is to say‑‑ (8) "employee" means any person working, normally for at least twenty‑four hours per week, for wages, in or in connection with the work of any industry, business, undertaking or establishment, under any contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied but does not include (a) persons in the service of the State, including members of the Armed Forces, Police and Railway servants; (b) persons employed in any undertaking under the control of any Defence organisation or Railway administration; (c) persons in the service of a local council, a municipal committee, a cantonment board or any other local authority; (d) any person in the service of his father, mother, wife, son or daughter, or of her husband; (e) Omitted by Ord‑.IX of 1972, S.2, First Schedule. (f) any person employed on wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem; (25) "secured person" means a person in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Ordinance; (30) "wages" means remuneration for service paid or payable in Cash or in kind to a secured person; not being less than remuneration based on the minimum rates of wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (XXXIX of 1961), without taking account of deductions for any purpose, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, expressed or implied, and shall be deemed to include any dearness allowance or other addition in respect of the cost of living and any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect of any period of authorised leave, illegal lockout or legal strike; but does not include‑‑ (a) any payment for overtime; or (b) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed by the nature of his employment; or (c) any gratuity payable on discharge; or (d) any sum paid as bonus by the employer; "Section

20. Amount and payment of contribution.‑ (1) Subject to the other provisions o this Chapter, the employer, shall in respect of every employee, whether employed by him directly or through any other person pay to the Institution a contribution at such times, at such rate and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Omitted by Ord.IX of 1972, S.2, First Schedule. (3) The employer shall not be entitled to deduct from the employee's wages or otherwise to recover from him any portion of the contribution, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub‑section (2) of section 71‑‑ (a) no contribution shall be payable on wages which are in excess of rupees twenty per day, and (b) C1. (b) omitted, by Ord.IX of 1972, S. 2. (5) For the purpose of determining the amount of contribution payable, daily wages shall be calculated in such manner as may be provided by regulations. (6) Whether the mode of payment of remuneration, whether in cash or in kind, makes it difficult to determine the amount of wages for computing the contribution, the Commissioner may, subject to regulations and in consultation with the representatives of employees, determine such wages. (7) Sub‑section (7) omitted, ibid. (8) In the case of construction work the owner of the building shall guarantee the payment of contributions by the contractor. (9) In the case of works executed or undertakings carried on behalf of the State by a contractor or licensee, the competent public authority shall before final settlement of the claims of the contractor or licensee arising out of the contract, require the production of a certificate from the Institution showing that the necessary contributions have been paid, and in default of such certificate it shall deduct from the amount otherwise payable in settlement of such claim, the appropriate amount of the contributions payable, and pay such amount direct to the Institution." Learned counsel for the Mill also raised the objection during the hearing of the appeals that on account of the delay in making the disputed contribution, after the adjudication of the dispute, the Mill has been made liable to pay a penalty "increase" on the contribution due under Section 23 of the Ordinance while as argued by him was unjustified. Section 23 reads as follows:‑ "Section

23. Increase of un aid contribution and recover of contribution, etc., as arrears o land revenue.‑‑(I) I any employer fails to pay on the due date the contribution payable by him under sub‑section (1) of section 20, the amount so payable by him shall be increased by such percentage or amount as may be prescribed: Provided that in no case shall such increase exceed fifty per centum of the amount due: Provided further that no part of such increase shall be payable by, or the liability to pay the same be passed on the employer to, his employees. (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy, the amount of the contribution due, together with the increase provided for under sub‑section (1), may be recovered as arrears of land revenue." There is no serious controversy with regard to the points raised by the Institution in Appeal No.76 of 1978. It is an agreed position that unless a person comes within the definition of an 'employee' and 'secured person', the Mill would not be liable to make any contribution to the Institution in respect to him. Some argument) however revolved around the question as to whether contribution would be payable regarding an employee who is paid wages in excess of Rs.20 per day. The position of the Mill before the High Court was that the name of such an employee would be excluded by the Mill when making the contribution. The High Court agreed with this reasoning and held as follows: "The employees whose wages are more than Rs.20 per day are to be excluded in computing the amount of contribution in view of the aforesaid sub‑section (4) of Section 20 of the Ordinance." Accordingly, in this behalf, the case was referred back to the Institution with the direction "to investigate into the question as to whether the payment demanded by it in respect of the above items if included would make the wages of some of the employees more than Rs.20 per day." With respect, we do not agree with the learned Judge in the High Court. The provisions relevant for the present discussion of sub‑section (4) of Section 20 reads as follows:‑ "no contribution shall be payable on wages which are in excess of rupees twenty per day". It does not require or permit the exclusion of "an employee" vis‑a‑vis the contribution simply because he is receiving more than Rs.20/‑ as wages per day. On the other hand, a more natural construction of this provision would mean that the amount "in excess" of Rs.20 per day paid as "wages" to an "employee" would not qualify for contribution to the Institution, i.e. the amount corresponding t the excess. Therefore, if an employee was getting Re.l in excess of Rs.20/‑ per day as wages, contribution would be payable on the wages up to Rs.20/‑ per day; but no contribution would be payable on the excess wages, i.e. Re.l per day. Thus interpreted there would be no clash between the definition of "employee" as contained in Section 2 and Section 20 (4)(a) of the Ordinance. In doing the,, proper exercise for discovering whether any amount payable as wages is liable to be subjected to the contribution, it would first have to, be seen whether the employee falls within the definition as contained in Section 2(8). After this, if it is found that a certain employee is covered by the definition the liability to the contribution would have to be determined under Section 20(4)(a) read with the other provisions of the relevant law which deal with the amount of wages payable to an employee. Learned counsel for the Mill was unable to place any other construction on the aforequoted provision and ultimately conceded that the appeal of the Institution may be allowed in this behalf. We order accordingly and the direction by the High Court to the Institution for further "investigation into this question" is withdrawn. The Appeal No.76 of 1978 of the Institution, therefore, is allowed with costs throughout. Regarding the point in Appeal No.281 of 1978 on which leave was granted, it has been urged by the learned counsel that the sum paid as leave encashment, and amount paid on Festival holiday account, are not covered by the definition of 'wages', therefore they do not qualify for the contribution to the Institution. He explained that when an employee works on a holiday for which he gets normal wages independently, the Mill compensates him for the extra work. It is thus a compensation and not wage. Hence leave encashment so explained is not wage. Similarly he explained that an employee who instead of enjoying an extra holiday in lieu of a festival holiday which falls on a gazetted holiday, is only compensated for not availing an extra leave, by making payment to him of an extra sum equal to a day's wage. It is therefore not wage. In alternative he argued that these sums are paid for overtime, which are excluded, by the definition, from wages. We do not agree with him. In both the instances the employees works for the Mill on days when he need not work, for earning his daily wage, hence it is the "remuneration" for the "service" he renders to the Mill. It is clearly a wage which under the definition he is entitled as of right and not as grace or mere compensation so‑called by the learned counsel. The definition visualises it clearly in addition to "any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect.o any period of authorised leave". As based on the definition, the alternative argument of the learned counsel, is too weak to be attended to. "Overtime" has a special connotation in the industrial and commercial terminology. The term is used in this and other similar laws in the sense that a 'time' is spent over and above the authorised working hours during a day or week. It cannot be equated with what has been described above as 'leave encashment' or 'payment' regarding 'Festival holiday'. These arguments thus are repelled. The last argument of the learned counsel on which leave was not granted is also without force. The point of increase of contribution) under Section 23 of the Ordinance stood resolved in the judgments of this Court in Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. and another v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution and another P L D 1977 S.C. 197 and Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore 1981 P L C (S C)

79. The request of the learned counsel to re‑open this controversy so as to change the view taken therein, is refused; as the same is without foundation.., The appeal of the Mill (No.281 of 1978), in the result is dismissed with the cost of the respondent throughout. The third Appeal No. K‑56 of 1979 though relates to the same law, is not directly connected with the other appeals. The amount of "casual Bonus" paid to the employees has been held to be excluded from wages because "bonus" is excluded by item (d) in the definition of wages in Section 2(30). It was so held by the First Appeal Court on 19‑12‑1977. The Institution did not file any appeal within time. The High Court has held that the said decision had become final. The argument of the learned counsel for the Institution (the appellant) that it was an interlocutary order during proceedings on stay application, has not impressed us. We have seen the order dated 19‑12‑1977. It was passed after full hearing with consciousness that it was final hearing on this point, though the case on other questions was adjourned to another date. It was in aid of speedy justice. We have no reason to disapprove this procedure. The same was not against any prescribed procedure. Similarly, the argument of the learned counsel that no opportunity was afforded to the Institution to show the nature of the 'casual' bonus is without force. The learned counsel who argued the matter in first appeal before the First Appeal Forum, it appears from his arguments noted in the order in question, l had with confidence contended that Casual Bonus was not excluded from the wages, as if he was fully conversant with the nature of this bonus. No contravention of any law or principle of law is involved in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs as the respondent has not appeared to defend. M.B.A/S‑78/S Order accordingly. SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN P L D 1988 Supreme Court 1 Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Dean, JJ SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION‑‑Appellant versus DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD.‑‑Respondent Civil Appeals Nos. 76 and 281 of 1978 and K‑56 of 1979, decided on 20th October, 1987. (On appeal from the judgments of Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 19‑4‑1978 in Misc. Appeals Nos.22, 23 and 26 of 1977 and 42 of 1977) (a) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 2(3)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)=‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether Mill was not liable to make contribution in respect of employees who were covered by the definition of "employee" but the wages drawn by them exceeded Rs.20 per day. [p. 4 ] A (b) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 2(30)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Word "wages"‑‑Meaning‑‑Leave to appeal granted to 'examine scope of word "wages" as used in the Ordinance.‑‑[Words and phrases]. [p.4] B (c) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 2 (8), (25) & 20‑‑Contribution‑‑Liability of employer‑‑Terms "Employee" and "secured person" meaning‑‑Attraction of liability, requirements for‑‑Unless a person comes within definition of an "employee" and "secured person", the employer would not be liable to make any contribution to the institution.‑‑[Words and phrases]. [p. 6] C (d) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 20(4) (a)‑‑Computation of amount of contribution‑‑Employees whose wages are more than Rs.20 per day are not to be excluded in computing the amount of contribution simply because they are receiving more than Rs.20 as wages per day. In such cases no contribution would be required to be made by employer on the wages exceeding Rs.20 per day. Section 20(4) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 does not require or permit the exclusion of "an employee" vis‑a‑vis the contribution simply because he is receiving more than Rs.20 as wages per day. On the other hand, a more natural construction of this provision would mean that the amount "in excess" of Rs.20 per day paid as "wages" to an "employee" would not qualify for contribution to the Institution, i.e., the amount corresponding to the excess. Therefore, if an employee was getting Re.l in excess of Rs.20 per day as wages, contribution would be payable on the wages up to Rs.20 per day; but no contribution would be payable on the excess wages, i.e. Re. 1 per day. Thus interpreted there would be no clash between the definition of "employee" as contained in section 2 and section 20(4)(a) of the Ordinance. In doing the proper exercise for discovering whether any amount payable as wages is liable to be subjected to the contribution, it would first have to be seen whether the employee falls within the definition as contained in section 2(8). After this, if it is found that a certain employee is covered by the definition the liability to the contribution would have to be determined under section 20(4)(a) read with the other provisions of the relevant law which deal with the amount of wages payable to an employee. [ p . 6 ] D (e) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑5. 2(30)‑‑Wages‑‑"Leave encashment" or payment for festival holiday‑‑Overtime‑‑Payment made to employee for working on the day when he need not work for earning his daily wages is "remuneration" for the "service" he renders to the employer, thus are "wages" which he is entitled as 'of right and not as grace or mere compensation‑‑Definition of "wages" visualises such payment clearly in addition to "any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect of any period of authorised leave‑‑Term "overtime" having a special connotation and being used in the sense that a "time" is spent over and above the authorised working hours during a day or week cannot be equated with "leave encashment" or payment regarding festival holiday.‑‑[Words and phrases]. [p. 7] E (f) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 23, 20 & 21‑‑Penalty for default imposition of‑‑Obligations on employer imposed under Ss. 20 & 21 are imperative‑‑Employer failing to comply with provisions of Ss. 20 & 21, held, was liable to imposition of penalty under S.23. [p. 7] F Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. and another v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution and another P L D 1977 S C 197 and Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore 1981 P L C (S C) 79 affirmed. (g) West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 2(30) (d)‑‑Casual Bonus‑‑Amount paid to employee as casual bonus, whether excluded from "wages". [pp. 7, 8] G & I (h) Practice and procedure‑‑ ‑‑‑ Order of High Court was passed after full hearing with consciousness that it was final hearing on a particular point, though the case on other questions was adjourned to another date‑‑Such order being in aid of speedy justice, Supreme Court approved the procedure as same was not against any prescribed procedure. S.A. Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court and Vakil Ahmad Kidwai Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant(in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1978). Khurshid Anwar Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1978). Khurshid Anwar Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant (inCivil Appeal No. 281 of 1978) . S.A. Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court and Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent (in Civi Appeal No. 281 of 1978). S. Ahmad Sarwana, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. K‑5 of 1979). Respondent : Ex parte (in Civil Appeal No. K‑56 of 1979). Date of hearing: 20th October, 1987 JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These appeals arise out of a judgment dated 19‑4‑1978 and Order dated 4‑3‑1978 of the Sind High Court. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. The Dawood Cotton Mills Limited one of the appellants (hereinafter mentioned as the Mill), is covered by the provisions contained in the West Pakistan Employees' . Social Security Ordinance (No. X) of 1965. It had introduced a Scheme of Social Security so as to provide benefits to certain employees of concerns like the Mill in this case. In pursuance thereto the Mill was required to register all of their secured workers and pay contribution to the Sind Employees Social Security Institution established under Section 3 of the Ordinance (hereinafter mentioned as the Institution) in respect of the wages paid to them. It came to the notice of the Institution that the Mill had not made contribution in respect of the following payments made to their employees:‑ (1) Conveyance Allowance; (2) Leave encashment; (3) Supplementary payments; and (4) Festival Holidays. Accordingly, contribution was assessed in accordance with Section 22 of the Ordinance and demands in respect thereof were made on the Mill. An appeal was filed by the Mill before the Social Security under Section 59 of the Ordinance wherein an objection was raised against this demand mainly on the ground that these payments did not constitute "wages" as defined in clause (30) of Section 2 of the Ordinance. It was also pleaded that some of the employees drawing more than Rs.20 per day as wages were not covered by the Ordinance. These contentions did not find favour with the appeal Court. The Mill then filed appeal before the High Court which was partly allowed vide impugned judgment dated 19‑4‑1978. Itwas held that the wages of some of the employees having exceeded Rs.20 per day, the Mill was not liable to pay the contribution in regard thereto because "the employees whose wages are more than Rs.20 per day are to be excluded in computing the amount of contribution in view of the aforesaid sub‑section (4) of Section 20 of the Ordinance". Aggrieved by this part of the impugned judgment the Institution filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted to examine whether the Mill was not liable to make contribution in respect of the employees who are covered by the definition of "employee" but the wages being drawn by him exceed Rs.20 per day. The Mill also was aggrieved by the inclusion of certain payments made to the employees which were thought to be not covered by the definition of "wages". Leave to appeal was granted in this behalf to the Mill to examine the scope of the word "wages" as used in the Ordinance. The first mentioned appeal of the Institution is No.76 of 1978 and the appeal of the Mill is No.281 of 1978. We have heard both the learned counsel at some length. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance read as follows: "Section

2. Definition.‑‑ In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them that is to say‑‑ (8) "employee" means any person working, normally for at least twenty‑four hours per week, for wages, in or in connection with the work of any industry, business, undertaking or establishment, under any contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied but does not include (a) persons in the service of the State, including members of the Armed Forces, Police and Railway servants; (b) persons employed in any undertaking under the control of any Defence organisation or Railway administration; (c) persons in the service of a local council, a municipal committee, a cantonment board or any other local authority; (d) any person in the service of his father, mother, wife, son or daughter, or of her husband; (e) Omitted by Ord‑.IX of 1972, S.2, First Schedule. (f) any person employed on wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem; (25) "secured person" means a person in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Ordinance; (30) "wages" means remuneration for service paid or payable in Cash or in kind to a secured person; not being less than remuneration based on the minimum rates of wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (XXXIX of 1961), without taking account of deductions for any purpose, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, expressed or implied, and shall be deemed to include any dearness allowance or other addition in respect of the cost of living and any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect of any period of authorised leave, illegal lockout or legal strike; but does not include‑‑ (a) any payment for overtime; or (b) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed by the nature of his employment; or (c) any gratuity payable on discharge; or (d) any sum paid as bonus by the employer; "Section

20. Amount and payment of contribution.‑ (1) Subject to the other provisions o this Chapter, the employer, shall in respect of every employee, whether employed by him directly or through any other person pay to the Institution a contribution at such times, at such rate and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Omitted by Ord.IX of 1972, S.2, First Schedule. (3) The employer shall not be entitled to deduct from the employee's wages or otherwise to recover from him any portion of the contribution, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub‑section (2) of section 71‑‑ (a) no contribution shall be payable on wages which are in excess of rupees twenty per day, and (b) C1. (b) omitted, by Ord.IX of 1972, S. 2. (5) For the purpose of determining the amount of contribution payable, daily wages shall be calculated in such manner as may be provided by regulations. (6) Whether the mode of payment of remuneration, whether in cash or in kind, makes it difficult to determine the amount of wages for computing the contribution, the Commissioner may, subject to regulations and in consultation with the representatives of employees, determine such wages. (7) Sub‑section (7) omitted, ibid. (8) In the case of construction work the owner of the building shall guarantee the payment of contributions by the contractor. (9) In the case of works executed or undertakings carried on behalf of the State by a contractor or licensee, the competent public authority shall before final settlement of the claims of the contractor or licensee arising out of the contract, require the production of a certificate from the Institution showing that the necessary contributions have been paid, and in default of such certificate it shall deduct from the amount otherwise payable in settlement of such claim, the appropriate amount of the contributions payable, and pay such amount direct to the Institution." Learned counsel for the Mill also raised the objection during the hearing of the appeals that on account of the delay in making the disputed contribution, after the adjudication of the dispute, the Mill has been made liable to pay a penalty "increase" on the contribution due under Section 23 of the Ordinance while as argued by him was unjustified. Section 23 reads as follows:‑ "Section

23. Increase of un aid contribution and recover of contribution, etc., as arrears o land revenue.‑‑(I) I any employer fails to pay on the due date the contribution payable by him under sub‑section (1) of section 20, the amount so payable by him shall be increased by such percentage or amount as may be prescribed: Provided that in no case shall such increase exceed fifty per centum of the amount due: Provided further that no part of such increase shall be payable by, or the liability to pay the same be passed on the employer to, his employees. (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy, the amount of the contribution due, together with the increase provided for under sub‑section (1), may be recovered as arrears of land revenue." There is no serious controversy with regard to the points raised by the Institution in Appeal No.76 of 1978. It is an agreed position that unless a person comes within the definition of an 'employee' and 'secured person', the Mill would not be liable to make any contribution to the Institution in respect to him. Some argument) however revolved around the question as to whether contribution would be payable regarding an employee who is paid wages in excess of Rs.20 per day. The position of the Mill before the High Court was that the name of such an employee would be excluded by the Mill when making the contribution. The High Court agreed with this reasoning and held as follows: "The employees whose wages are more than Rs.20 per day are to be excluded in computing the amount of contribution in view of the aforesaid sub‑section (4) of Section 20 of the Ordinance." Accordingly, in this behalf, the case was referred back to the Institution with the direction "to investigate into the question as to whether the payment demanded by it in respect of the above items if included would make the wages of some of the employees more than Rs.20 per day." With respect, we do not agree with the learned Judge in the High Court. The provisions relevant for the present discussion of sub‑section (4) of Section 20 reads as follows:‑ "no contribution shall be payable on wages which are in excess of rupees twenty per day". It does not require or permit the exclusion of "an employee" vis‑a‑vis the contribution simply because he is receiving more than Rs.20/‑ as wages per day. On the other hand, a more natural construction of this provision would mean that the amount "in excess" of Rs.20 per day paid as "wages" to an "employee" would not qualify for contribution to the Institution, i.e. the amount corresponding t the excess. Therefore, if an employee was getting Re.l in excess of Rs.20/‑ per day as wages, contribution would be payable on the wages up to Rs.20/‑ per day; but no contribution would be payable on the excess wages, i.e. Re.l per day. Thus interpreted there would be no clash between the definition of "employee" as contained in Section 2 and Section 20 (4)(a) of the Ordinance. In doing the,, proper exercise for discovering whether any amount payable as wages is liable to be subjected to the contribution, it would first have to, be seen whether the employee falls within the definition as contained in Section 2(8). After this, if it is found that a certain employee is covered by the definition the liability to the contribution would have to be determined under Section 20(4)(a) read with the other provisions of the relevant law which deal with the amount of wages payable to an employee. Learned counsel for the Mill was unable to place any other construction on the aforequoted provision and ultimately conceded that the appeal of the Institution may be allowed in this behalf. We order accordingly and the direction by the High Court to the Institution for further "investigation into this question" is withdrawn. The Appeal No.76 of 1978 of the Institution, therefore, is allowed with costs throughout. Regarding the point in Appeal No.281 of 1978 on which leave was granted, it has been urged by the learned counsel that the sum paid as leave encashment, and amount paid on Festival holiday account, are not covered by the definition of 'wages', therefore they do not qualify for the contribution to the Institution. He explained that when an employee works on a holiday for which he gets normal wages independently, the Mill compensates him for the extra work. It is thus a compensation and not wage. Hence leave encashment so explained is not wage. Similarly he explained that an employee who instead of enjoying an extra holiday in lieu of a festival holiday which falls on a gazetted holiday, is only compensated for not availing an extra leave, by making payment to him of an extra sum equal to a day's wage. It is therefore not wage. In alternative he argued that these sums are paid for overtime, which are excluded, by the definition, from wages. We do not agree with him. In both the instances the employees works for the Mill on days when he need not work, for earning his daily wage, hence it is the "remuneration" for the "service" he renders to the Mill. It is clearly a wage which under the definition he is entitled as of right and not as grace or mere compensation so‑called by the learned counsel. The definition visualises it clearly in addition to "any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect.o any period of authorised leave". As based on the definition, the alternative argument of the learned counsel, is too weak to be attended to. "Overtime" has a special connotation in the industrial and commercial terminology. The term is used in this and other similar laws in the sense that a 'time' is spent over and above the authorised working hours during a day or week. It cannot be equated with what has been described above as 'leave encashment' or 'payment' regarding 'Festival holiday'. These arguments thus are repelled. The last argument of the learned counsel on which leave was not granted is also without force. The point of increase of contribution) under Section 23 of the Ordinance stood resolved in the judgments of this Court in Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. and another v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution and another P L D 1977 S.C. 197 and Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution, Lahore 1981 P L C (S C)

79. The request of the learned counsel to re‑open this controversy so as to change the view taken therein, is refused; as the same is without foundation.., The appeal of the Mill (No.281 of 1978), in the result is dismissed with the cost of the respondent throughout. The third Appeal No. K‑56 of 1979 though relates to the same law, is not directly connected with the other appeals. The amount of "casual Bonus" paid to the employees has been held to be excluded from wages because "bonus" is excluded by item (d) in the definition of wages in Section 2(30). It was so held by the First Appeal Court on 19‑12‑1977. The Institution did not file any appeal within time. The High Court has held that the said decision had become final. The argument of the learned counsel for the Institution (the appellant) that it was an interlocutary order during proceedings on stay application, has not impressed us. We have seen the order dated 19‑12‑1977. It was passed after full hearing with consciousness that it was final hearing on this point, though the case on other questions was adjourned to another date. It was in aid of speedy justice. We have no reason to disapprove this procedure. The same was not against any prescribed procedure. Similarly, the argument of the learned counsel that no opportunity was afforded to the Institution to show the nature of the 'casual' bonus is without force. The learned counsel who argued the matter in first appeal before the First Appeal Forum, it appears from his arguments noted in the order in question, l had with confidence contended that Casual Bonus was not excluded from the wages, as if he was fully conversant with the nature of this bonus. No contravention of any law or principle of law is involved in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs as the respondent has not appeared to defend. M.B.A/S‑78/S Order accordingly.