JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:— The Government of India by a notification dated May 19, 1969 issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called The Act) fixed the minimum rates of wages payable to different categories of employees employed in Manganese mines. The minimum rate of wage in respect of the unskilled workers was fixed at Rs. 2.40 per day. The management, under an agreement, was paying to the employees attendance bonus and was supplying grain to them at concessional rates.

2. The question for our consideration is whether the monetary value of the grain supplied at concessional rates and the amount Paid as attendance bonus can be included and counted into the minimum wages payable to the employees under the above said notification.

3. Nathu Purnia and 25 other workmen employed with Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagger filed two applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Government Labour Court at Nagger for recovery of the deficit amount of wages due to them -from the management. According to them, unskilled and semi-skilled workers were entitled to Rs. 2.40/ - and Rs. 3.20/ - per day as minimum wages, but the management was illegally deducting out of their wages the cash value of various benefits and amenities such as attendance-bonus and concessional supply of foodgrains to them. The management opposed the applications before the Labour Court on the ground that the minimum wage was an all inclusive wage which included the cash value of all benefits such as foodgrains supplied at concessional rates, bonus and various other amenities extended to the workmen. According to the management, the workmen were being paid wages in cash as well as in kind and the money value of those benefits was to be taken into consideration while computing the minimum wage. The our Court rejected the contention of the management and allowed the applications of the workmen. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the monetary value of the grain supplied at concessional rate or the amount paid as attendance bonus could not be counted towards the minimum rates of wages payable to the workmen under the notification.

4. Chandi Lal, a Sweeper working with the Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagger also filed an application under S. 33-C(2) before the Central Government Labour Court at Nagger claiming the same relief as was being asked by Nathu Purnia and others. The management resisted the claim on similar grounds and also raised an additional ground to the effect that he was a domestic servant working in the bungalow of Mechanical Engineer and as such was not an employee of the management. The Labour Court rejected all the contentions raised by the management and allowed the application of Chandi Lal.

5. The management challenged the above said orders of the Labour Court by way of two writ petitions under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the Nagger Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated April 24, 1978 dismissed the writ petitions. Civil Appeals Nos. 15(L) and 16(L) of 1979 by the management, via special leave, are against the High Court judgment.

6. Madho and 9 other workmen of the appellant management, who were working at Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh filed applications under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Jabalpur seeking the same relief as was sought by Nathu Purnia and others from Labour Court at Nagger. The Labour Court, Jabalpur, while partly allowing the applications decided the issue regarding the supply of grain at concessional rates, against the workmen. It was held that the management was entitled to add the cash value of the grain supplied to the workmen at concessional rates for computing the minimum wage. The workmen did not challenge the order of the Labour Court on the issue before the High Court or any other authority. The management, however, filed writ petition under Art. 226/ 227 of the Consti