Skip to content


Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1750 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN203
AppellantRajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Respondentindustrial Tribunal and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredR.G. Mongol v. R.S.E.B. Jaipur
Excerpt:
.....33(2) and payment of wages act--section 2(6)--term 'wages'--connotation of--washing allowance, and medical allowance cannot be included in workman's wages under section 33.;the medical allowance or washing allowance cannot be said to be part of wages or cannot be included in the term wages as occurring in section 33 of the industrial disputes act, where the workman has to be paid one month's wages.;writ allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act..........tribunal has found that the workman was not paid the washing allowance amounting to rs. 2/- and medical allowance amounting to rs.10/- and that they have been deducted from the wages, which he was paid at the time of dismissal. the industrial tribunal refused the approval. it is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the washing allowance and the medical allowance is not part of the pay and, therefore, the petitioner corporation was not obliged to pay to the workman as the same cannot be included in the term of one months wage. reliance has been placed on prakash chandra v. industrial tribunal 1980 l.i.c. 336, where in the orissa high court has held that conveyance is not included in the word 'wage.'5. on.....
Judgment:

Surrendra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 3-3-76 (Annex. 12) passed by the Industrial Tribunal refusing to approve removal of Shri Jawan Singh and dismissing the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Jawan Singh was in service of the petitioner and was posted as A.D.A.A. Conductor (Booking Clerk) at Suratgarh Booking Station. A charge-sheet was served on Jawan Singh that he has been guilty of mis-conduct under Clause (1) of Standing Order 34 of the R.S.R.T.C. Employees and Workshop Employees Standing Orders. An enquiry was held and thereafter the penalty of removal was imposed on him. An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the industrial Disputes Act was filed before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of their action. A reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the workman and he took objection that the enquiry was not proper and the charges have not been proved and that he has not been paid the full wages for the month, hence the approval should be refused.

3. Learned Industrial Tribunal has found that the workman was not paid the washing allowance amounting to Rs. 2/- and medical allowance amounting to Rs.10/- and that they have been deducted from the wages, which he was paid at the time of dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal refused the approval. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the washing allowance and the medical allowance is not part of the pay and, therefore, the petitioner Corporation was not obliged to pay to the workman as the same cannot be included in the term of one months wage. Reliance has been placed on Prakash Chandra v. Industrial Tribunal 1980 L.I.C. 336, where in the Orissa High Court has held that conveyance is not included in the word 'wage.'

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the washing allowance as well as medical allowance both are part of the wage and, therefore, they should have been paid to the petitioner and since they have not been given the Industrial Tribunal rightly refused the approval and has placed reliance on Sr. Superintendent R.M.S. Cochine v. K.V. Gap Nath : (1972)ILLJ486SC and Moti Lal v. Union of India 1973 (1) S.L.R. 174 (Raj.) In both these cases it has been observed that the payment of pay and allowance in lieu of notice and serving of order of termination have to be simultaneous.

6. Mr. Calla has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 972/79 R.G. Mongol v. R.S.E.B. Jaipur decided on 17th August, 1984, wherein, learned Chief Justice has observed that the house rent allowance and city allowance are inclusive of pay and allowance. That was a case of compulsory retirement, in which the employee was given 3 months pay and allowances along with the notice of compulsory retirement.

7. The word 'wage' has been defined in Section 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, which reads as under:

(vi) 'Wages' means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowance or otherwise) expressed in terms of money 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 includes

(a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a court;

(b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled to in respect of overtime work of holidays or any leave period;

(c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name);

(d) any sum by reason of termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made;

(e) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme formed under any law for the time being in force;

but docs not includes:

(1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;

(2) the value of any house accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any services excluded from the computation of wages by a special order of the State Government;

(3) any contritution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued thereon;

(4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or

(6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in Sub-clause (d).

It would be obvious after reading the definition of word 'wages' quoted above that it does not include 'value of any house accommodation or the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any services excluded from computation wages by special order of the State Goverment or any travelling allowance.

8. In the present case the only dispute is that the workman was not paid washing allowance and medical allowance. The authorities cited by Mr. Calla of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court are of no avail as they do not help in deciding the present controversy as to whether washing allowance and medical allowance would form part of the wages. The case of R.S. Mangal (supra) is also distinguishable in as much as that was the case of compulsory retirement, wherein the employee had to be paid 3 months pay and allowance along with the notice of compulsory retirement, wherreas in the present case the workman had to be paid one month's wage as occuring under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, this judgment also does not help the workman.

9. Mr. R.N. Munshi placed reliance on the judgment of Orissa High Court in Prakash Chandra's case which was a case under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Orissa High Court held that conveyance allowance was not. included in the word 'wages'. I am also in agreement with the view expressed by the Orissa High Court and in my view the medical allowance or washing allowance cannot be said to be part of wages or cannot be included in the term wages as occurring in Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, where the workman has to be paid one month's wages.

10. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 3-3-1976 is hereby quashed. Since the Industrial Tribunal has already found that the enquiry was proper and charges stood proved, application under Section 33(2)(b) is allowed.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //