UNITED BUILDINGS Vs. RAMNATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Judge of Singhbhum in his capacity as the appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wages Act').

(2.) The petitioner's case is as follows. It is a proprietary firm engaged in securing contracts of civil construction works from different persons and authorities and executing the same. For this purpose the firm engages casual labourers for executing the contracts and their services come to an end automatically on the completion of the contract work. The petitioner got a contract from the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. at Jamshedpur for doing some casual construction work in its New Coke Oven Project. This work was started in the second week of April, 1966 and completed by the end of March, 1968. The opposite parties and a few others persons are said to have been employed for this contract work and their services had come to an end with the completion of the work in March, 1968 and they had been given a formal notice of termination of service. The opposite parties by their letter dated the 3rd. of March, 1968 complained to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chotanagpur Division that the petitioner was not paying their dues and the Labour Officer by his letter dated the 3rd of April, 1968 informed them that they were not entitled to retrenchment compensation or bonus, but they were entitled to get wages for annual leave which the petitioner was ready to pay. The opposite parties then filed an application under Sections 15 (2) and 16 of the Wages Act before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Ranchi claiming

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged firstly that bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bonus Act') is not covered by the definition of the term 'wages' as given in Section 2 (vi) of the Wages Act. It is next contended that 'retrenchment compensation' and 'notice pay' also are not covered by the aforesaid definition. Consequently, it is said that the authority under the Wages Act could not enter into the question of payment of bonus or 'retrenchment compensation' or 'notice pay'. As an alternative argument it has been urged that assuming that these claims are covered by the definition of wages, they involve complicated questions of fact and law and are outside the Jurisdiction of the authority under the Wages Act. With regard to 'bonus' the next point raised by learned counsel is that in view of Sec. 32 (vi) of the Bonus Act the opposite parties are not entitled to receive bonus. Thirdly, it is urged that in view of Section 22 of the Bonus Act, the dispute relating to payment of bonus is an industrial dispute and as such governed by the provision: of the Industrial Disputes Act. With regard to the payment of retrenchment compensation, it is urged that in view of sub-section (2) of S. 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, the opposite parties were not entitled to any such compensation. It is next urged in this connection that in view of Section 33-C the claim for such compensation ought to be made by an application to the Government in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that section and in no case, therefore, the matter could be decided by the authority under the Wages Act, with regard to 'notice pay' also the argument is that the workers being casual, they were not entitled to notice or 'notice pay' and the matter cannot be decided by the authority under the Wages Act and the arguments with regard to 'retrenchment compensation' apply to 'notice pay' as well.