INDIA LEAF SPRING MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY
LAWS(APH)-1992-11-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 10,1992

INDIA LEAF SPRING MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PAYMENT OF WAGES AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
B D MOHAN RAO VS. CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIES ESTATES LTD [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. KARPI [REFERRED TO]
P DORAIKANNU VS. PROPRIETOR HOTEL SAVOY MADRAS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act viz., the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the Management which figured as the appellant in the appeal CMA No.6/87 on the file of the District Judge.
(2.)The respondent-workmen filed an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act stating that they were not being paid wages from 10.7.1985 till 28.1.1986. The Management pleaded that the workmen were under suspension from 10.7.1985 and therefore the question of payment of wages and the delay in payment therof does not arise. The Payment of wages Authority, on a consideration of the evidence adduced, directed the Management to pay subsistence allowance to the workmen to the tune of Rs.54,168.45. Against this order, an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge who is designated as Appellate Authority under the Payment Wages Act. The main contention raised by the Management before the Appellate Authority was that subsistence allowance does not come under 'wages' within the meaning of Payment of Wages Act. This contention was negatived relying upon two decisions of this Court reported in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Payment of Wages Authority (1) 35 FJR 417 and the General Superintendent, PWD Workshop, Hyderabad vs. D.Prabhakar Chetty (2) 1976 (1) An. WR 28 (SN) and the Judgement of the Madras High Court in Dorai Kannu vs. Proprietor, Hotel Soy (3) AIR 1966 Madras 201. The Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in K.C. Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Karpi (4) 1987 (1) Llj 179 which took a different view was not followed.
(3.)I do not see any error of law in the order of the District Judge. I am inclined to take the same view which this Court had already taken and followed by the appellate authority. The definition of the word 'wages' as per Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is quite comprehensive and it takes within its ambit, the allowances as well. According to the definition, wages means - "all remuneration whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise, expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed, which would, if the terms 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...." It includes even a sum payable by reason of termination of employment. It is axiomatic that by suspending an employee, the contract of service is not put an end to once for all. It is only an interim measure pending enquiry and finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the suspended workmen were subsequently reinstated. It is to be noted that the right to payment of subsistence allowance accrues under a statutory. provision viz., Section 10-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The said provision should be read into the terms of employment. Thus, subsistence allowance is an allowance payable in compliance with the terms of employment superimposed by the statute if not by the contract of employment. St would therefore fall squarely within the definition of 'wages'.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.