The meaning of "total full time earnings" under section 80 of the Factories Act is the earnings he earns in a day by working full time on that day, full time to be in accordance with the period of time given in the notice displayed in the factory for a particular day.

KOTVAL J.-This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings taken by respondent No.2 Chandan son of Bhika, a bidiroller, for payment of his leave wages under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The present petitioner, the Manager, Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory, Kamptee, is his employer. The worker alleged that he had been working in the factory of the petitioner for over 240 days and that he was accordingly entitled to leave with wages under section 79 of the Factories Act for the period of 15 days from 3-4-1961 to 17-4-1961 but that those wages had not been paid. According to the worker his daily average whole time earnings were Rs. 2.75 N.P. and he, therefore, claimed a total of Rs. 41.25 N.P. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has granted the workers application but has held that he is entitled to compute the leave wages on the basis of a daily average earning of Rs. 2.04 N. P. and the employer has filed the present petition challenging that order.

2. The employer had, in answer to the application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, raised a number of contentions with which we are not concerned in this petition, but substantially Mr. Phadke appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two important points. The first is whether a bidi roller like the respondent No.2 is entitled to the leave wages at all and secondly, if he is entitled, whether he can claim wages beyond the period of two years. Having heard counsel for both the sides we think that the answer to the first contention must be in favour of the petitioner, namely, that the worker, the respondent No.2, is not entitled to claim leave wages at all for reasons which we shall presently state and, therefore, it is unnecessary to decide the second point raised by Mr. Phadke.

3. The provision of law under which the claim was made before the Payment of Wages Authority is section 79 (1) read with section 80. Section: 79 (1) provides as follows:

"Every worker who has worked for a period of 240 days or more in a factory during a calendar year shall be allowed during the subsequent calendar year leave with wages for a number of days calculated at the rate of (i) if an adult, one day for every twenty days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year,

(ii) if a child, one day for every fifteen days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year.

Explanation 1.-For the purpose of this sub-section-

(a) any days of layoff, by agreement or contract or as permissible under the standing orders;

(b) in the case of a female worker, maternity leave for any number of days not exceeding twelve weeks; and

(0) the leave earned in the year prior to that in which the leave is enjoyed:

shall be deemed to be days on which the worker has worked in a factory for the purpose of computation of the period of 240 days or more, but he shall not earn leave for their days.

Explanation 2.-The leave admissible under this sub-section shall be exclusive of all holidays whether occurring during or at either end of the period of leave."

Section 80, sub-section (1), shows how the wages during the leave period are to be computed and section 80, sub-section (1) provides as follows:

"For the leave allowed to him under section 79 a worker shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily average of his total full time earnings for the days on which he worked during the month immediately preceding his leave exclusive of any overtime and bonus but inclusive of dearness allowance and the cash equivalent of the advantage accruing through the concessional sale to the worker of foodgrains and other articles."

4. The contention on behalf of the employer in this case has been that, having regard to the peculiar terms and conditions of work of the respondent No.2, it is in the first place impossible to say that he is a worker at all and even assuming that he is a worker within the meaning of the Factories Act, it ill impossible