The words "for which" in Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1960, as it stood before amendment in July 1960, relate to any of the days on which rest is given, whether on the first day of the week or not.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal by special leave is against an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in a dispute referred to that Tribunal by the Central Government under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act between the workmen of the Bombay Port Trust, who are the appellants before us and the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, the respondents in the appeal. The workmen concerned in the dispute as referred are shore workers belonging to A" category, "B" category and casual category. These three categories came into existence under the scheme adopted by the Bombay port Trust in April 1948 for direct employment of shore workers in place of the system previously in force under which such labourers used to be supplied by contractors known as Toliwallas. The matters in dispute were specified thus in the letter of reference to the Tribunal:

"Arrears due to the shore workers belonging to the "A" category, "B" category and casual category in respect of

(i) weekly off with pay for the period l5th March, 1951 to 2nd March, 1956;

(ii) work on weekly off days during the period l5th March, 1951 to 2nd March, 1956, without a compensatory day off in lieu; and

(iii) average daily wages for the weekly off days after the introduction of the piecerate scheme with effect from 3rd March, 1956, when the average fluctuated from week to week."

2. It became clear at the hearing before the Tribunal that of the period mentioned in Item (i) and Item (ii), viz., the l5th March, 1951 to 2nd March, 1956, no "weekly off" was given at all from the l5th March 1951 to October 1953 but workmen were made to work generally for all the 7 days of the week, and further that from October 1953 to 2nd March, 1956, Sunday was give as the "weekly off and no work was taken on that day. The real dispute therefore as regards Item (i) and Item (ii) was in respect of (a) arrears of wages for Sunday the weekly off on which no work was done from October,1953 to March 2 1956, and (b) arrears of wages for work done during the period 15th March, 1951 to October, 1953 on Sundays which should have been given as a weekly off day but was not, though no compensatory day was given in lieu thereof.

3. As regards arrears of wages for Sundays on which no work was done the workmen s case is that they were entitled to receive payment for each such Sunday amounts equal to their average daily wages during the preceding week. But admittedly no payment was made for these Sundays. The respondents case however is that on a proper interpretation of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1960, the workmen were not entitled to payment for Sundays on which no work was done by them and further that in any case they have been constructively paid for the Sundays also inasmuch as the daily wages were fixed at 1/26th of the monthly wage.

4. The Tribunal accepted these contentions raised on behalf of the employer and held that there were no arrears of wages in respect of Sundays for which no work was done. With regard to the period March 15, 1951 to October,1953 it appears the workmen except morphias were paid at twice the ordinary rate inclusive of all allowances, for all work done on Sundays; Morphias were paid one and a half times the normal rates of wages. The workers case is that for the work done on Sunday during this period they were entitled to three times the ordinary rate. This claim was also rejected by the Tribunal which was even held that the Morphias were entitled to double their wages inclusive of all allowances and so directed that they shall be paid for work done by them on weekly rest days from 15th March, 1951 to October1953 the difference between double their wages inclusive of all allowances and what they have been paid.

5. We may state at once that the dispute as regards arrears due to workers belonging to "casual" category has not been pressed before its and does not therefore require consideration in this appeal. The claim as regards arrears of wages for