SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(SC) 101

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA, K. N. WANCHOO
Quasim Larry – Appellant
Versus
Muhammad Samsuddin – Respondent


Advocates:
M.C.SETALVAD, R.C.Prasad

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the term "wages" as defined by S. 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. 4 of 1936) (hereinafter called the Act ) includes wages fixed by an award in an industrial dispute between the employer and his employees. This question has to be answered in the light of the definition prescribed by S. 2(vi) before it was amended in 1958.* The subsequent amendment expressly provides by S. 2(vi) (a) that any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court, would be included in the main defination under S. 2(vi). The point which we have to decide in the present appeal is whether the remuneration payable under an award was not already included in the definition of wages before the said definition was amended. It is common ground that between the appellant, Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd., and its workmen, the respondents, an award had been made by the Industrial Tribunal fixing the pay of the employees at Rs. 2/2/- per day, and in pursuance of the said award, the management of the appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondents that effect would be g











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top