AMBIKA SAW MILL Vs. ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question that arises for decision in this writ application is as to whether the money value equivalent to the free meals supplied by the petitioner to opp. party No. 5, its employee, could be added to his salary for working the amount of gratuity payable to him.

(2.) ACCORDING to the findings recorded by opp. party No. 1 in Annexure -2, opp. party No. 5 was working as a Supervisor under the petitioner from 10 -10 -1971 to 29 -10 -1981. This finding has not been assailed before us.

(3.) IT is in this way that the question mentioned above arises, vis, as to whether Rs. 220/ - could be added to the salary of opp. party No. 5 as the money equivalent of the free food for computing the gratuity. Our attention was also invited to a mistake committed by opp. party No. 1 in the impugned order (Annexure -2) with reference to Notification No. 9138 dated 28 -1 -1982 issued by the Department of Labour and Employment of the Government of Orissa. According to this Notification, the minimum wages of a Supervisor working in a scheduled establishment (saw mill) was Rs. 450/ - per month. This Notification came into force only since 3 -2 -1982. It is observed by opp. party No. 1 in Annexure -2 that: 'Since the applicant was employed in a similar scheduled establishment, wages payable to him definitely come to Rs. 250/.' Opp. party No. 1 perhaps lost sight of his own finding that opp. party No. 5 had worked in the petitioner's establishment only till 29 -10 -1981. Obviously, therefore, the rate of wages fixed under the Notification was not admissible to opp. party No. 5. Annexure -2 is impugned by the petitioner firstly on this ground. But this would, not help him as I find that opp. party No. 1 has also taken into consideration the fact of supply of free food and has calculated Rs. 220/ - as the money equivalent for that benefit and added that amount to the salary of opp. party No. 5 thus making a total of Rs. 450/ - per month. 6 It was vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that opp. party No. 1 has committed a serious error of law in adding Rs. 220/ - to the wages for working out the amount of gratuity. This contention at once necessitates reference to the definition of 'wages given in the Act which is as follows :