Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.62 seconds)
V.B. Godse, Manager, Prabha Mills, Ltd. vs R.H. Naick, Inspector, Under The ... on 11 March, 1952
cites
Section 15 in The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936 [Entire Act]
Arvind Mills Ltd. vs K.R. Gadgil on 5 July, 1940
5. Then our attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Arvind Mills, Ltd. v. Gadgil 42 Bombay L.R. 955. That is a judgment of Sir John Beaumont, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Wassoodew, and we find that the learned Chief Justice there has put really the same interpretation upon the definition of "wages" as we are doing in this case. There, what was held was that potential wages which are not earned do not fall within the definition of "wages." There the authority under the Payment of Wages Act held that the bonus was payable not only to those who come within the terms of the scheme prepared by the employer, but to all other employees of the applicants, and in coming to this conclusion the learned Chief Justice took the view that the expression remuneration meant no more than remuneration payable on the fulfilment of the contract. Therefore, the learned Chief Justice has taken the same view that whatever is payable or whatever the employer is liable to pay on the fulfilment of the contract constitutes wages within the meaning of the definition.
Section 3 in The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936 [Entire Act]
Jogendra Nath Chatterjee And Sons vs Chandreswar Singh on 14 August, 1950
4. Our attention has then been drawn by Mr. Thakor to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jogendra Nath v. Chandreswar Singh . It is true that the facts which the Calcutta High Court was considering were very similar to the facts which we have before us. There also an award was made by the industrial tribunal and an amount awarded by the tribunal was claimed before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the Calcutta High Court held that an application under Section 15 by an employee to realise his dues awarded by the industrial tribunal was not maintainable as the Act provided for the method of recovery of wages as defined in Section 2(vi), and that his remedy lay of a suit. With very great respect to the Judges of the Calcutta High Court, they have only considered the definition of "wages" from the point of view of the terms of the contract of employment and the terms being either express or implied, and the whole decision turns on the view taken by the learned Judges that a liability to pay under an award was neither an express nor an implied term of the con tract. There is no discussion whatever in the judgment, again with very great respect, on the expression used by the legislature to the effect that the amount is payable on the fulfilment of the contract. We entirely agree with the Calcutta High Court that the liability to pay under the award is neither an express nor an implied term of the contract. But, with respect where we disagree is that the definition of "wages" under the Act is much wider than wages being merely confined to what is payable under the express or implied terms of the contract of employment.
The Modern Mills Ltd. vs V.R. Mangalvedhekar on 13 March, 1950
Then there is a recent decision of this Court in Modern Mills, Ltd. v. Mangalvedhekar 52 Botti. L.R. 389. In that case there was an award of the Industrial Court and an employee applied to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act alleging that certain payment was clue to him under the award. The authority construed the award and came to the conclusion that the employee was entitled to the benefit arising under the award. The decision of the authority was challenged on the ground that the authority had no jurisdiction to construe the award of the Industrial Court. This Court rejected the contention and held that the authority had jurisdiction. Now, it is true that the point that we are considering was not directly considered by the bench of this Court in that case. But when the court held that the, authority under the Payment of Wages Act had the jurisdiction to construe the award made by the Industrial Court and ordered payment against the employer under the award, impliedly it did hold that the authority had jurisdiction to order payment due under an award and that that payment constituted "wages" within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act. Mr. Thakor says that the point was never raised by the petitioners in that case. But the very fact that the point was not raised goes to show that the petitioners felt that it was not possible for them to urge that contention before the court. Therefore, although this is not a direct decision, by implication it is a decision that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has the jurisdiction to order payment against an employer in respect of amount made payable under an award of the Industrial Court which necessitated those observations. The employees in that case claimed 'bonus under various heads and the claim was referred by the Government of West Bengal to the industrial tribunal. An application was made for a writ of certiorari and prohibition against the tribunal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with that matter. The writ was refused by the High Court of Calcutta and that decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Now it will be borne in mind that the bonus that the workers claimed was neither due to them under any contract of employment nor was it due to them under any award made by the industrial tribunal. The workers merely claimed to be entitled to the bonus and that claim had yet to be adjudicated upon by the industrial tribunal. It is on these facts that the learned Chief Justice at page 24 stated:
1