J.K.Tandon, J. - (1.) The above petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an important question of law as to the true meaning and scope of the term "wages" defined in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and consequently as to the scope of Section 15 of the said Act under which the authority empowered therein can direct the payment of what has been claimed to be in this case delayed wages. It will be necessary at the very outset to state certain facts peculiar to the case.
(2.) The petitioner is a sugar undertaking owing its mills in the town of Meerut. The respondents, who are twenty-eight in number, besides the authority which made the order under Section 15 of the Act, are some of the seasonal labourers who happened to be employed in the petitioner's mills season after season during the last few years. The fact is not disputed that these respondents are seasonal workmen. The Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in this State--the petitioner factory is One such factory--classify workmen in six different categories viz., (1) Permanent, (2) Seasonal, (3) Temporary, (4) Probationers, (5) Apprentices and (6) Substitutes. The seasonal workman is one who is engaged only for the crushing season but who is liable to be called on duty at any time in the off season and if he refuses to join or does not join he loses his lien as well as his retaining allowance. The expression "season" is also defined in these Standing Orders and means "the period commencing from the date when the crushing commences till the date when crushing ends." It is not contested that the crushing season does not last during the whole of the length of the year.
(3.) During the period when the crushing season is not continuing the seasonal workmen who are engaged only for the crushing season are, since they are no longer engaged and are in off-season, paid retainer's allowance. The twenty-eight respondents claiming that they were entitled to this allowance for the off-period during the year 1957-58 moved the appropriate authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for a direction that the employer be directed to pay the amount of the retainer's allowance which according to them was payable but had not been paid. The petitioners contested their liability on the ground, firstly, that no such allowance was payable and, finally, on the ground, with which this petition is presently concerned, that the payment claimed or asked for by the respondents was not included in the term "wages" defined in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and, therefore, the authority hearing the applications by these persons was incompetent to act under the said Act. The petitioners' objection having failed before that authority they have come up by this petition impugning the order passed by it. The order is dated the 15th June, 1959, and has directed different amounts, as mentioned in col. 5 of the Schedule part of the above order, to be paid to the several persons.;