Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. We have to point out that performance incentive provided for under the scheme is neither a right nor part of wages which the workers earn by virtue of the conditions of service. Performance incentive is not part of basic wages. The individual workman has no right to such performance incentive automatically unless he satisfies the conditions. Performance incentive, on the facts of the case, is an assurance to the workmen as a means of procuring their regular attendance with the ultimate object of increasing efficiency of transport service. It as an incentive for regular attendance. The same not payable to the workmen at the time of joining the employment. It is payable to a workman who had put in continuous service for a specific period and who was loyal to the management by putting in the required attendance and also by not resorting to strike or stoppage of work and for that only an incentive is provided. This incentive is not part of wages.

33. In Muir Mills Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Anr. , the Apex Court held thus at p. 590 of LLJ:

"Thus understood 'basic wages' never includes the additional emoluments which some workmen may earn, on the basis of a system of bonuses related to the production. The quantum of earnings in such bonuses varies from individual to individual according to their efficiency and diligence, it will vary sometimes from season to season with the variations of working conditions in the factory or other place where the work is done, it will vary also with variations in the rate of supplies of raw material or in the assistance obtainable from machinary. This very element of variation excludes this part of workmen's emoluments from the connotation of 'basic wages.'"

37. The above principle of equal pay for equal work is well laid , well accepted and well settled. But in this case there is no quarrel that equal pay for equal work is being paid to the workers employed in the appellant-Corporation and in terms of the wage settlement wages are being paid and there is no quarrel in this respect. Therefore, by the imposition of stipulations in the scheme of performance incentive, the said doctrine of equal pay nor Article 14 is violated. The said doctrine of equal pay for equal work will have no application. As already pointed out we have held that the performance incentive is not part of the basic wages and denial of such performance incentive as per the guidelines and policy provided for by the State Government on the ground that the employees have resorted to strike or stoppage of work, which is a valid criterion and it is a relevant consideration to achieve the maximum production or optimum efficient operation of the buses and therefore denial of such performance incentive as provided for in the Government Order is neither arbitrary, nor it is discriminatory, nor the workers are treated differently nor it is an affront to Article 14 as none of the rights of the workers are being deprived.

40. This condition has got a nexus with the object sought to be achieved and such a condition is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory as the incentive is being paid to the entirety of the section or category of employees as has been categorised in the Government order as there is a basis for such categorisation and even if there is a dislocation by some or few of the employees in that category, the production or the normal operation of the bus breaks down. Being a concession and not forming part of the basic wages payable for the work turned out, the view of the learned Judge that the condition is discriminatory cannot be sustained.