minimum basic wages and dearness allowance fixed by certain awards, which was termed as “quota”. The production above the “quota” was paid for at piece-rate. There was “norm” also fixed which was much higher than the “quota” and every workman was expected to produce the “norm” as the minimum production. If a workman did not produce the “norm”, he was guilty of misconduct and would be liable to dismissal, as the agreement provided that any deliberate deviation from production “norm” would amount to go-slow tactics. On behalf of the workers, it was canvassed that the production bonus scheme in force in the company, as understood in industry, only started after the “norm” and that payment for production between the “quota” and the “norm” was nothing more than the “basic wages” as defined in the said Act. The Supreme Court agreed with that contention and held that in a typical production bonus scheme, the worker was not bound to produce more than the base or standard, though he might do so in order that his earnings might go up. However, the worker could not stop at the quota; he must produce up to the “norm” on pain of being charged with misconduct in the shape of go-slow and being liable to be dismissed. Thus, it was held that the portion of the payment which is made by the management for production up to the “quota” as well as production between the “quota” and the “norm” would come within the term "basic wages" as defined in the said Act and the portion of the payment which is made by the management above the norm would be “production bonus”' and not the basic wages.
