ANANDA TRANSPORT Vs. M CHELLIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions arise in these writ appeals. We shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petitions. Thirteen workers in Writ Petition No. 2723 of 1969 and five workers in Writ Petition No. 2724 of 1969, who were the respondents in the writ petitions, claimed before the labour Court functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they were not given uniform and chappals during the years 1966 and 1967 and also washing charges, providing all of which is obligatory on the part of the management for the different workmen concerned in the two writ petitions, and they sought the assistance of the labour Court in the matter of such benefits which were capable of being computed in terms of money to be so computed. The management was the respondent before the labour Court. The labour Court, after having correctly appreciated the position of law that such benefits were computable in terms of money and they were benefits to which the workmen were entitled to under the provisions of the Madras Motor Transport Workers' Rules, 1965, framed under the Motor Transport Workers Act of 1961, computed the same and granted it to the workmen. The management, which is a transport undertaking, filed two writ petitions as above in this connection and sought for writs of certiorari to quash the decision of the labour Court in each of those petitions. According to the management, the labur Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the application for the computation of the benefits in question and in any event as the benefits ex facie are to be enjoyed but not encashed, no question of computation of such benefits would arise for the exercise of jurisdiction, even if such jurisdiction is available in the labour Court, and pass a decision thereon. Alagiriswamy, J. , as he then was, would not entertain these petitions even at the admission stage, but from the records it does not appear that there was any serious argument before the learned Judge about the maintainability of the applications before the labour Court. The learned Judge, however, held that the benefits sought for in the instant case were capable of being computed in terms of money, having regard to its nature and purpose, and he accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. It is as against these, the present appeals have been preferred.

(2.) MR. Varadarajulu Naidu, the learned Counsel for the appellant, referred to us the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the rule framed thereunder and repeated before us the main contention that the applications filed under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are not maintainable and hence the decision rendered on such applications should be ignored. He did not, however, contend that the quantifications as made by the labour Court and accepted by the learned Judge are in any way excessive or not proper.

(3.) WE shall now refer to the necessary provisions in the concerned enactments to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the term "wages" is defined, in Section 2 (vi) therein, as meaning, 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 and proceeds to include some more enumerated items of remuneration set out in Clauses (a) to (e) therein. It is not, however, necessary for the purpose of this case to go into the scope of the other remunerations set out in the sub-Clauses as above. Section 15 of the Act provides the method by which claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims are to be decided or settled. Various Tribunals are mentioned in Section 15 which include the Presiding Officer of any labour Court as well.