The Management, Sri Bannari Amman Bus Service vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Karnan

M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 31.10.2002, passed by the first respondent labour Court, in C.P. No. 719 of 1998, and to quash the same.

It is stated that the second respondent is working as a conductor in the petitioner establishment. The second respondent had filed an application before the first respondent labour Court, u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming a sum of Rs. 63,097/- from the petitioner, as the difference in wages payable to him, in accordance with the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act and the actual wages paid to him for the period, from 1.8.1993 to 31.5.1998, along with 20% bonus.

The Management of the petitioner establishment had resisted the claim of the second respondent stating that he was being paid more than the minimum wages prescribed by the notification by adding the batta paid to the second respondent to the wages paid to him. Based on the evidence available on record, the first respondent labour Court had passed the impugned order, dated 31.10.2002, directing the Management of the petitioner establishment to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 63,097/-, being the difference in wages and the bonus accrued thereon, along with 8% interest and costs, quantified as Rs. 250/-, within two months from the date of the order holding that the batta paid to the second respondent cannot be taken to be forming a part of the wages paid to the second respondent.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the following decisions had been placed before this Court in G.I.P. Railway v. Mahadeo Raghoo 1955 I L.L.J. SC 359, Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. Chandi Lal Saha and others, , and Punchiri Boat Service Ltd. v. State of Travancore-Cochin 1955 I L.L.J TC 679 wherein it could be seen that in normal circumstances the batta paid to an employee cannot be taken as part of his wages.

In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner establishment, as well as the second respondent and in view of the cases cited, it is clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 31.10.2002, made in C.P. No. 719 of 1998. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.