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 c