TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LTD Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, dated 4-2-1958, made under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act should not be set aside by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 326 of the Constitution. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 8 in this case, but cause has been shown by the other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(2.) It appears that respondents 1 to 7 made an application, under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dhanbad who was the appointed authority. The claim of respondents 1 to 7 was that bonus for four quarters commencing with the quarter ending 30-6-1956 was not paid to, the extent of Rs. 645-8-6 pies. It was pointed out by the respondents that by Notification No. S. R. O. 691, dated 22-2-1954 the Government of India had referred for adjudication certain disputes in the colliery of the petitioner to the All India Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) and In that reference wages of all categories of workers employed in the coal industry, their standardisation and grading were referred to be adjuciated. By its award dated 26-5-1956, the Tribunal placed heavy tindals in category VI, which entitled them to get a daily basic wage of Rs. 1-4-0. This will appear from paragraph 520 at page 140 of the printed award. The tribunal also gave a direction that if the workers were getting higher emoluments than it awarded, the management should make the same available to the workers by adjusting the basic wage in such a way that the workers did not gel less in any way by the award (see para 700 at page 184 of award). The complaint of the respondents was that the petitioner gave basic wage at the rate of Rs. 1-4-0 and in addition gave an ad hoc allowance in order to bring the total emoluments up to the level which the respondents had been getting before the date of the award. The result of the action of the petitioner was that the respondents suffered loss of bonus at the rate of Rs. 13 per quarter. The contention of the respondents was that the whole amount paid by the petitioner should be treated as wages and no part of it should be treated as ad hoc allowance, and there should be a direction upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 645-8-6 pies which has been withheld and which the respondents claimed as part of their bonus. The application was resisted by the petitioner before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dhanbad. The case of the petitioner was that the question raised by the respondents related to implementation of an award and not for delayed or deducted wages, and, therefore, the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dhanbad had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act. The objection of the petitioner was overruled by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, who held that the ad hoc allowance given by the petitioner to the respondents should be treated as part of the basic wages. In the operative portion of the order the Sub-divisional Magistrate has stated as follows: "I therefore allow the alternative prayer of the applicants and direct the management under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act to pay to the applicants the total emoluments, after deducting lie D. A. as wages and not to treat any part of the total allowance as ad-hoc allowance with effect from the date the Coal Tribunal Award came into force."

(3.) In support of this application learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that payment of bonus was no part of the "wages" within the ambit of Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act as it stood before the Amendment Act LXVIII of 1957. It is not disputed in this case that the parties are governed by Section 2(vi) of the Act as it stood before the amendment, which read as follows :