D. D. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the New Victoria Mills Company, Ltd. , Kanpur, opposite party 2 to the petition, as a line jobber. The nature of his duty is to supervise the work of weavers working on looms which is known as one line and that is why the name of line jobber is given to a person who supervises the work done on the line. The petitioner is paid wages which is calculated on the average production given by the weavers and the looms of the line. It is stated in Para. 4 of the petition that if the production is 66 per cent or above in case of four looms set and 72 per cent or above in case of two looms set, the weavers and the line jobbers are paid efficiency reward which is also known as production bonus. According to the petitioner the efficiency reward is paid in terms of an agreement arrived at between the representatives of the workmen and the petitioner-concern and has been regularly paid as part of their wages. Line jobbers also are paid efficiency reward even though they were not actually working in the mills as the payment depends upon the production given by the line of a line jobber. In 1952 and 1957 the petitioner was sent out of the mills for doing some election work on behalf of the petitioner-concern and was paid efficiency reward though he did not actually work in the mills. In those years he was shown on "special leave. " From 31 March to 26 April 1957 the petitioner was sent out to receive training started by the State Government. He was shown on leave and was paid efficiency reward for that period. Prom 8 January to 7 April 1960 the petitioner was again sent to receive training of workers teacher started by the Central Government and was granted leave for that period. He was again shown as being on " special leave " for the period but was not paid efficiency reward. The petitioner demanded the payment of efficiency reward but the company refused to pay it. Then the petitioner approached his union which raised an industrial dispute. As no amicable settlement could be arrived at during conciliation proceedings the State Government, by an order issued in February 1961, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the labour court (II) at Kanpur, opposite party 1 to the petition: Matter of dispute.-Whether the action of the employers in depriving their workman, Keshav Prasad, son of Ram Lakhan Rai, T. No. 7, line mistry, weaving department, of efficiency reward for the period 8 January to 7 April 1960 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled and with what other details ?

( 3 ) THE parties filed their written statements before the labour court and also led oral evidence. The labour court gave its award on 31 August 1961 and held that the petitioner was not entitled to the payment of efficiency reward for the period in dispute as he did not actually work during that period and was only allowed leave with wages. The award was published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette on 14 October 1961.

( 4 ) THE petitioner challenges the award and prays that the same be quashed. It is also prayed that the labour court be directed to decide the matter of dispute afresh.

( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the assistant labour officer of the mills and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder-affidavit.

( 6 ) I have heard Sri J. N. Tewari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. N. Sapru, appearing for the mills. Sri J. N. Tewari submitted that the labour court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the efficiency reward is not a part of wages though the employers Admitted it to be so in their pleadings. He also contended that the labour court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that efficiency reward is paid to the line jobbers when they are actually on duty.

( 7 ) SRI T. N.