BABU KISHAN CHAND Vs. HABIB ULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of suits for the recovery of money on the basis of mortgages. The question to be decided in both appeals is whether the mortgagor was a workman within the meaning of the Debt Redemption Act. Appeal No. 1374 of 1942 is an appeal against the decree of the Civil Judge of Benares passed in appeal in a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage. Appeal No. 999 of 1943 is as appeal against the order or decree of the Civil Judge of Ghazipur passed in appeal against the order of the Munsif on an application for the amendment of a decree for sale. In the former case it has been found as a fact that the mortgagor was employed to make golden embroidery or tinsel and in. the latter case that the mortgagor was employed in a sweet shop. In both cases it has been held that the mortgagor's wages were less than Rs. 600 within the twelve months preceding the first day of June 1940, and did not exceed Rs. 60 in any such months. In neither case was the mortgagor employed in a factory within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The question is whether a person can be a workman within the meaning of the Debt Redemption Act, 1940, even if he is not employed in a factory within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Section 2, Sub- section (20), Debt Redemption Act, 1940, says: Workman means a person who is not a proprietor or a tenant and- (a) who earned wages within the meaning of Sub-section (vi) of Section 2, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, within the twelve months preceding the first day of June, 1940, which did not exceed Rs. 600 in the said twelve months and did not exceed Rs. 60 in any such months....

(2.) Sub-section (vi) of Section 2, Payment of Wages Act, says: Wages means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed, or otherwise, to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment....

(3.) In the judgment which has given rise to appeal No. 1374 of 1942 it was held that the mortgagor was a workman. In the judgment which has given rise to the other appeal it was held that he was not a work, man. In the former case, therefore, it is the creditor plaintiff and in the latter case the debtor applicant who is the appellant. In both cases it is argued on behalf of the debtors that the definition of the term "wages" in Sub-section (vi) of Section 2, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, should be imported into the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, with, out reference to any other section in the Payment of Wages Act. The debtors urge that the meaning which we must give to the term "wages" is the same as it would have been if the Legislature had said in the Debt Redemption Act that "workman" means a person who is not a proprietor or a tenant and who earned wages within the twelve months preceding 1 June 1940, which did not exceed Rs. 600 in the said twelve months and did not exceed Rs. 60 in any such months and then added a definition of the word wages in the same terms as those in Sub-section (vi) of Section 2, Payment of Wages Act, 1986. On the other side it is urged that the Payment of Wages Act by Sub-section (4) of Section 1 applies the Act in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory and to persons employed (otherwise than in a factory) upon any railway or by a railway administration and there, fore that the definition of the term "wages" in the Act can only apply to wages paid to such persons.