AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.
This writ petition has been filed against a judgment dated 10.3.87 passed by the District Judge in an appeal filed by the respondent workman u/s 20 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
The undisputed facts of the ease are that the respondent workmen were working with the petitioner belonging to skilled category, in the trade of electrician, having the designation of Assistant Electrician.
In exercise of its power u/s 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the State of U.P. issued a notification dated 26th September, 1980 fixing the minimum wages included the petitioner''s salary plus Dearness Allowances The petitioner''s industry had more than 1100 workmen and therefore, was to be included in the ''G'' Category. Under Clause-3 of the notification, the rates of basic wages were specified for skilled workmen to be Rs. 338 92. The variable D.A was, to be given at the rate of one rupees over 381 points.
Under the same notification Clause-5, it was provided that -
YAH ADHESH AISI ABHIYANTHRAN EKAIYOM PAR LAGOO NAIHM HOGA, JO ABHIYANTHRAN UDYOG KE LIYA VATAN MANDAL KEE ANUSHASAVOM KE ANUSAR YA/UUSESE ADHIK VEDAN EVAM MEHANGAYEE BHATTA RAHIN HAI.
Such being the position, large body of the workmen of the petitioner Company accepted the wages, which were being given to skilled workman @ 5.58.85 at that time. This was the total wage including all the components of the wage, However, the respondent workman filed an application u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, who claimed a sum of Rs. 5,506.65 for the period September, 1980 to June. 1982 claiming that the employer has paid less wages that is those payable to him under the notification dated 26th September, 1980. The workmen also paid compensation equivalent to ten times of the original claim.
The matter was contested before the Payment of Wages Authority who gave his decision on 18.1.84 and came to the conclusion that the wages which were being paid to the respondent workmen was not less and in fact recorded the finding that the wages paid to him was 5.58.85 which was being paid to the respondent workmen was in fact, higher than that of what he would have got under the notification.
The Prescribed Authority examined the definition of the word "wages" and correctly came to the conclusion that wages not only included basic wages, but the entire package and other components of the wage were also included the word "wages" as defined u/s 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act Wages as defined under the Payment of Wages Act is quoted herein below :
Definition of "wages" as substituted in 1957. The existing definition of the term "wages" has given rise to certain practical difficulties particularly in regard to interpretation of certain words used in the definition. In some cases the High Courts have ruled that the word "wages" did not mean, "potential wages" but wages earned". Now-a-days the terms of payment under contracts of employment are frequently modified by the awards of tribunals or by the terms of binding settlements. The wages revised statutorily through adjudication, arbitration, conciliation or similar statutory process should also be deemed lo be wages for purposes of the Act. The definition of,''''wages''" has accordingly been recast and made comprehensive and clear.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Proscribed Authority, the respondent workmen then filed an appeal u/s 20 of the Act, in which, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to comply with the notification because the. Company came in the ''Gha'' Category of the notification and, therefore, the basic wage which was given in the notification dated 26th September, 1986 being 338,92, the dearness allowance should have been given on that.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the District Judge is wholly illegal and is vitiated because he has wrongly interpreted the word "wages" and has, also misinterpreted the purpose of the notification issued on 26th of September, 1980.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that at the time when the notification was issued, the Company was paying the scale of a sum of Rs. 5.58.85 which was higher than the total amount prescribed under the notification and, therefore, Clause V of the notification now play and the said notification could not comply to the petitioner Company at all.
He next argued that even if notification were to be applied to the petitioner Company, the maximum wages that would have been given to the respondent workmen would be a sum of Rs. 338.92. The basic wages and the variable D.A. of Rs. 57.50 on each point is beyond Rs. 381. The total of this amount would be 396.42. Consequently, the workmen had not suffered any prejudice and ware not entitled to any higher claim.
Learned counsel for the respondent has very vehemently argued that the basic wages provided under the notification is Rs. 338.92 and the variable D.A. should have been given on the basis of this and because the variable D.A. was not fixed on Rs. 338,92, the respondent workmen was entitled to the relief u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as reported in 1999 (83) F.L.R. 126 in the case of Airfreight Ltd, and State of Karnatka and Ors. wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the word "wages" means the total components of the wages and cannot be broken up into components. In fact it is the total of all the components, which is the "wages".
Therefore, applying the ratio of this case in the present case, it cannot be said that the basic wages would have been separated as individual component to arrive at the conclusion as to what would be the total wages under this notification to ensure the minimum wages to workmen working in Engineering Industries which I also hold that the claim of the respondent workmen to apply the notification in bids and pieces was completely misconceived. There is no doubt that the respondent workman was getting a total of Rs. 558.85 and if the notification which he relied on were strictly applied to him, he will get Rs. 396,42 and less and nothing more than that.
In the result, the order passed by the District Judge u/s 20 of the Act is no doubt vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
I quash the judgment of the District Judge dated 10.3.87.
The writ petition is allowed But there will be no order as to costs.