Judgment

SINHA J.: This is an appeal by Special leave from the orders dated 28-9-1951 passed by respondent 2, the Authority appointed under S. 15(1), Payment of Wages Act (4 of 1936), (which hereinafter will be referred be to as the Act) allowing respondent 1 s claim for house rent allowance as part of his wages.

2. In this case the facts are not in dispute and may shortly be stated as follows : Respondent 1 is a gangman in the employ of the Central Railway (which previously used to be known as the G. I. P. Rly.), since April 1945. At that time his wages were Rs. 18 per month plus dearness allowance. With effect from 1-11-1947 the Railway Board under the Ministry of Railways of the Government of India introduced a scheme of grant of Compensatory (city) allowance and house rent allowance at rates specified their memorandum No. E47CPC/14. This scheme was modified by the Railway Board s latter No. E47CPC/14 dated 1-12-1947.

As a result of this scheme of certain railway employees stationed at specified headquarters were eligible for the allowance aforesaid at certain specified rates. Respondent 1 thus became entitled to the allowance of Rs. 10 per month. This allowance respondent 1 drew along with his salary until 18-8-1948 when he was offered by the Government, quarters suitable to his post, but he refused to occupy the same. On his refusal to occupy the quarters offered by the Government, the house rent allowance was stopped with effect from 19-8-1948. On 8-6-1951 respondent 1 put in his claim before the Authority for Rs. 290/-on the ground that the appellant, the Divisional Engineer, G. I. P. Ry., who was the authority responsible under S. 4 of the Act for payment of wages, had stopped payment of house rent allowance to him from 19-8-1948. The claim covered the period 19-8-1948 to 18-1-1951 at the rate of Rs. 10 per month.

The appellant appeared before the Authority and by his written statement contested the claim on the ground that the house rent allowance which was the subject-matter of the claim was not "wages" within the meaning of S. 2(vi) of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted by the appellant who was the opposite party before the Authority that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim which should be dismissed in limine .

It was further pleaded that the claim was inadmissible on the ground that there had been no illegal deduction from the respondent s wages inasmuch as the respondent had been allotted railway quarters of a suitable type and as he had refused to occupy those quarters he was not entitled under the rules to any house rent allowance. Alternatively, it was further pleaded by the appellant that so much of the claim as related to a period preceding six months immediately before the date of the application was time-barred under the first proviso to S. 15(2) of the Act. The Authority condoned the delay and that part of the order condoning the delay is not in controversy before us.

3. On the issues thus joined between the parties the Authority came to the conclusion that the house rent allowance was "wages" as defined in the Act, that as a matter of fact, accommodation was offered to respondent 1 and he refused it; but that even so, the appellant was not entitled to withhold the house rent allowance. Accordingly the claim for Rs. 290/- was allowed by the Authority.

4. The short point to be decided in this case is whether the house rent allowance claimed by respondent 1 came within the purview of the definition of "wages" contained in the Act. There being no difference on questions of fact between the parties, the answer to the question raised must depend upon the construction to be placed upon the following material portion of the definition of "wages" in S. 2 (vi) of the Act :

" 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