JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioners have made a challenge to the Order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Guwahati, whereby, he has held that the term 'Salary or Wages" defined under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, includes the money value of confessional food grains supplied to workers (Rs. 14.20 per day) given in lieu of part of the wages and therefore, directed that the bonus be paid on the money value of confessional food grains prospectively.

3. The petitioners' counsel submits that the Labour Commissioner has wrongly come to the above conclusion by relying upon the definition of wages given under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and by applying the Judgment dated 07.08.2012 of this court passed in WP© No. 5481/2011 to the facts of this case.

4. The petitioners' case is that the definition of wages, as provided in the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 expressly excludes the value of any confessional supply of food grains. However, the definition of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 does not exclude the value of any confessional supply of food grains, even if there is no specific inclusion of the same in Section 2 (h) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

5. The petitioners' counsel submits that the issue decided in WP © No. 5481/2011 has no relation to the case in hand. The issue in WP © No. 5481/2011 was with regard to whether there was any difference in the 'cash value of food grains" and the "cash value of food concession" and the Court held that they had the same meaning, as both the terms rested on the term; eatable things.

The petitioners' counsel submits that the decision made in WP© No. 5481/2011 was in relation to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Assam Tea Plantations Provident and Pension Fund Scheme Act, 1955 (ATPPPFS Act, 1955), which included the value of food concessions under the definition of wages.

6. He submits that the definition of wages is different in the various Acts made by the Government and the Labour Officer committed an error in applying the definition of wages given under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the ATPPPFS Act, 1955 to the facts of this case and in the impugned Order dated 27.12.2013. The petitioners' counsel submits that the fact situation in the present case is different, in as much as, the issue herein is whether the value of confessional food grains can be taken into account, for the purpose of computing wages under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. He submits that as the fact situation is different in the present case, the decision of this Court passed in WP © No. 5481/2011 cannot be used as a precedent.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1, Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal & Ors., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 638, Rohitash Kumar & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 451 and Harden Motor Transport Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 613.

7. Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submits that the wages of workmen has to be calculated in terms of the definition of wages given under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He also submits that though the definition of wages as given in Section 2 (21)(ii) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 does not include the value of any confessional supply of food grains, the Explanation to Section 2(21) allows for the inclusion of the value of confessional supply of food grains to be a part of the salary or wages of the workmen. He thus submits that the meaning of wages under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 would include the value of confessional food grains.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent N