1. ' This appeal under section 64 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is directed against the decision made on 17-12-1988 by the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court at Karachi sitting as the Social Security Court.
2. ' The appellants herein have been making contributions to the Social Security Institution in terms of the provisions made in the said Ordinance. The dispute in this appeal relates to the contribution required to be made by the appellants for the years 1982 and 1983. The appellants had made certain contributions on account of Social Security of their workers to the Institution on the basis of calculations made by them. The Korangi Directorate under the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution re-audited the accounts of the appellants and demanded payment of an additional amount for the said two years. On a representations made by the appellants to the Commissioner of the said Institution books of account kept by the appellants were ordered to be re-audited by a team of Auditors. As the result of re-audit the claim was subsequently reduced. The extra payment was demanded as the result of the re-auditing as it was held that the amount spent by the appellants in providing working uniforms to their workmen and amount paid to the Transport Company for transporting the staff of the company was treated as wages of the workmen.
3. ' The appellants being aggrieved by order mentioned in the preceding paragraph filed an appeal before the First Sindh Labour Court at Karachi as a Social Security Court. The appellants did not succeed in the appeal as the Social Security Court by its decision made on 17-12-1988 held that the appellants were liable to make social security contribution after taking the amounts spent by them on conveyance and providing uniforms to the workmen to be the wages of the secured workmen.
4. The appellants being aggrieved by that decision have filed the present appeal.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad All Saeed, Advocate appearing .For the appellants mainly contended that the appellants are liable to make contribution to the Social Security Institution in terms of section 20 of the said Ordinance only when the expenses incurred by the appellants to provide uniforms and transport is treated as "wages" as defined in section 2(30) of the Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965. According to him such allowances cannot be treated as "wages" within the definition of the term as provided by the provision of law made in the Ordinance particularly when such payment was admittedly made by the appellants as the result of a settlement. To support his such contention he referred to cases reported in 1987 PLC 541 and PLD 1987 SC 1.
6. ' Mr. SA. Sarwana, Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that any remuneration for services paid in cash or in kind to a worker is included in the definition of wages given in section 2(30) of the. Said Ordinance. In the instant case the cost incurred for providing uniforms and transportation facilities to the workers is to be considered as remuneration paid in kind to workers and, therefore, calculation for the contribution to the social security institution is to be worked out by adding such amounts as the "wages". He has referred to cases reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 890 and 744 and PLD 1977 SC 197.
7. ' The learned counsel for the parties agree that the only point that needs consideration in the present appeal is the true meaning of the term "wages" as given in the definition contained in section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Such definition is reproduced as under:- "2(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;"
8. ' In order to appreciate the correct meaning of term "wages" as defined in section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 it is necessary to examine the definition of the term given in two earlier enactments viz. Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961. The definition of "Wages" given in section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is reproduced below:- "(vi) "Wages" means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed, or otherwise, to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment, but does not include--
(a) the value of any house-accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity, or of any service excluded by general or special order of the (Provincial Government);
(b) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension, fund or provident fund;
(c) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or
(d) any gratuity payable on discharge."
9. ' The definition of the term "wages" given in section 2(8) of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 is reproduced below: "2(8)"Wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, but does not include--
(a) any contribution paid by the employer in respect of such person under any scheme of social insurance or to a pension fund or provident fund;
(b) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;
(c) any sum paid to such person to defray special expenses incurred by him in respect of his employment;
(d) any sum paid as annual bonus; or
(e) any gratuity payable on discharge; and"
10. ' The examination of the definition of term "wages" as given in the three statutes mentioned hereinabove clearly indicates that term "wages" has been used as synonymous of "remuneration".
11. "Remuneration" has not been defined in any of the statutes. Ordinary dictionary meaning of "remuneration" as given in Legal Thesaurus is reproduced herein:-- "REMUNERATION, award, compensation, defrayal, defrayment, indemnification, indemnity, money, pay, payment, premium, quittance, recompense, reimbursement, remuneration, requital, restitution, return, reward, satisfaction, settlement."
12. ' It thus simply means payment made for rendering services.
13. ' The term "wages" has been defined separately in each of the three enactments mentioned hereinabove. The meaning assigned to term "wages" in the two earlier enactments (Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961) is indeed of wider import than what is given in the Ordinance under consideration. Word "all" prefixed to "remuneration" in the two earlier enactments is by design omitted by the Legislature from the text of definition of the same term given in section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Sindh Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Besides, word "capable" following word "remuneration" in the same statutes has also been omitted from the text of the Ordinance. It therefore clearly follows that meaning of wages/remuneration given in the Ordinance is of restricted nature. From its very definition as is given in section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, it follows that only the actual remuneration as is paid or is payable in cash or in kind to a workman for rendering his services without considering any deduction for any purpose under a contract of service or apprenticeship expressed and/or implied will only be taken to be "wages". By providing a deeming clause in the definition certain other allowances have also to be taken into account for calculating actual wages paid to the women. Such allowances as are mentioned in the definition itself are cost of living allowance, payment made by employer to a workman for encashing authorised leave, illegal lock- out or legal strike. It, therefore, follows that except such allowances no other payments whatsoever paid to workmen can be taken into account for the purpose of calculating wages as defined under the Ordinance. The definition also specifically excludes any payment made for over-time or any sum paid to the workman to defray special expenses entailed by nature of his employment or any gratuity payable on his discharge or any sum paid as bonus to him. The four items under sub- clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (30) of section 2 have been specifically excluded from consideration of such payment as wages. As a result of such analysis it will be seen that any expenses that are incurred by an employer in providing uniforms or transport if the same are not paid in terms of the service contract initially entered into between the employer and his workmen will not be included in working out their wages for the purpose of the Ordinance. Such expenses will be covered under sub-clause (b) of the said subsection and will not be added to work out actual "wages" for the purpose of making a demand for contribution to the Social Security Institution under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965.
14. In view of above, I am inclined to hold that expenses incurred by the appellants in providing uniforms and transport to their workers not being the payment made under the initial contract of service will not be taken into account to determine the "wages". For the above reasons, I set aside the order impugned in this appeal and allow the appeal with no order as to the costs.