ARVIND MILLS LTD Vs. K R GADGIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revisional applications which call in question an order made by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahme-dabad, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The learned Magistrate's decision was upheld by the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad.

(2.) THE short point is this, THE Arvind Mills, Ltd., who are the applicants, carry on the business of the manufacture of yarn and cloth at Ahmedabad, and they employ workmen at their Mills, some of whom are paid by the piece, and some by time. THE Mill authorities recently introduced a scheme for paying a bonus to) workmen. In the case of workmen paid by the piece the scheme is that any workman who turns out within a week the number of pieces set opposite the quality of the cloth in a published list will be paid a bonus of four annas for each week of six days. In the case of time workers the scheme seems to be that the workers are employed for a Hapta, which means a time period of sixteen days, at certain remuneration, and the scheme provides that a bonus of a specified amount will be paid to any worker who attends throughout the whole of the Hapta; if he is absent for any day of the first eight days he loses half the bonus, and if he is, absent for any day of the other eight days he loses the rest of the bonus. THE scheme is obviously intended to encourage regular and quick work. THE result of the learned Magistrate's decision is, not to declare the bonus scheme unlawful under the Payment of Wages Act, but to affirm that the bonus is payable, not only to those who come within the terms of the scheme, but to all other employees of the applicants. That seems on the face of it a rather remarkable conclusion at which to arrive. Prima facie, an employer isi not bound to pay for work which has not been done, and an employee is not entitled to receive payment which he has not earned. However, the question is whether the decision which the learned Magistrate has arrived at is in conformity with the Act.

(3.) EVEN if therefore the bonus falls within the definition of wages, I am of opinion that there is nothing in the Act to prevent its deduction if not earned. But, in my opinion, taking the definition in conjunction with the rest of the Act, it does not embrace potential wages. The expression " remuneration, which would, if the terms of the contract were fulfilled, be payable," seems to me to mean no more than " remuneration payable on the fulfilment of the contract." In my judgment the bonus never became payable to the employees who did not earn it under the terms of the bonus scheme, and the judgments of the lower Courts were wrong, and these revisional applications must be allowed with costs throughout. Wassoodew, J.