# A. M. ALLISON v. B. L. SEN

- **Citation:** [1957] 1 S.C.R. 359
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1957
- **Case number:** Civil Rules Nos. 147 and 148 of 1952
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-m-allison-v-b-l-sen-1345
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
359
A. M. ALLISON
v.
B. L. SEN
(and connected appeal)
(BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR,
B. P.
SINHA
and S. K. DAs, JJ.)
Minimum basic wages-Basic work-load-Extra wages for work
done in excess of basic work-load-Writ 'Of certiorari-When to be
granted-Minimum Wages Act 1948 (XI of 1948), ss. 3, 5(2) and
20-Constitution of India, Art. 226.
The labourers were being paid the basic wages of as. 8 /- for
male labourers and as. 6 (- for female
labourers for the work-load
or
task of
plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green tea leaves
respectively each day. If the labourers plucked larger quantities of
leaves they were paid extra wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer in
excess of 16 seers
and 12
seers
respectively.
The Government
issued a notification under s. 3 read with s. 5 ( 2) of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, increasing the rates of basic wages to as. 12 /-
and as. 11/- respectively.
The management thereafter refused
to
make any extra payment to the labourers at the rate of 6 ps. per
seer unless the leaves plucked by them exceeded 24 seers and 22
seers respectively.
Held, that the sole intention of the Government in issuing
the notification was to increase the basic wages while maintaining
the same' basic work-load or task assigned
to
the
labourers, so
that whatever extra work was done by the labourers in excess of
the existing work-load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of
tea leaves by the male and female
labourers
respectively,
had
still to be paid for at the rate of 6 ps. per seer.
Quaere : Whether the claim for the extra wages
amounts
to
a claim arising out of the payment of less than the minimum
rates of wages within the meaning of s. 20(2) of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948.
A writ of certiorari cannot be had as a matter of course. The
High Court is entitled to refuse the writ if it is satisfied that
there was no failure of justice.
The Supreme Court dedines to
interfere, in appeal, with the discretion of the High Court unless
it is satisfied that the justice of the case requires such interference.

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
359
A. M. ALLISON
v.
B. L. SEN
(and connected appeal)
(BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR,
B. P.
SINHA
and S. K. DAs, JJ.)
Minimum basic wages-Basic work-load-Extra wages for work
done in excess of basic work-load-Writ 'Of certiorari-When to be
granted-Minimum Wages Act 1948 (XI of 1948), ss. 3, 5(2) and
20-Constitution of India, Art. 226.
The labourers were being paid the basic wages of as. 8 /- for
male labourers and as. 6 (- for female
labourers for the work-load
or
task of
plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green tea leaves
respectively each day. If the labourers plucked larger quantities of
leaves they were paid extra wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer in
excess of 16 seers
and 12
seers
respectively.
The Government
issued a notification under s. 3 read with s. 5 ( 2) of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, increasing the rates of basic wages to as. 12 /-
and as. 11/- respectively.
The management thereafter refused
to
make any extra payment to the labourers at the rate of 6 ps. per
seer unless the leaves plucked by them exceeded 24 seers and 22
seers respectively.
Held, that the sole intention of the Government in issuing
the notification was to increase the basic wages while maintaining
the same' basic work-load or task assigned
to
the
labourers, so
that whatever extra work was done by the labourers in excess of
the existing work-load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of
tea leaves by the male and female
labourers
respectively,
had
still to be paid for at the rate of 6 ps. per seer.
Quaere : Whether the claim for the extra wages
amounts
to
a claim arising out of the payment of less than the minimum
rates of wages within the meaning of s. 20(2) of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948.
A writ of certiorari cannot be had as a matter of course. The
High Court is entitled to refuse the writ if it is satisfied that
there was no failure of justice.
The Supreme Court dedines to
interfere, in appeal, with the discretion of the High Court unless
it is satisfied that the justice of the case requires such interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeals NQS,
279 and 280 of 1955.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated July 7,
1953, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 147
and 148 of 1952.
1956
D1&ember, lll
1956
A. M. Allisao
v.
B. L. Sen
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19571
C. K. Daphtary, Salicitor-General of India, P. K.
Goswami, S. N. Mukherji and B. N. Ghosh, for the
appellants in both appeals.
Purshottam Tricumdas and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 280/56.
N aunit Lal, for respondent No. 1 in both Appeals.
1956. December 21. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
BHAGWATI
J.-~These two appeals with certificates
under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution are directed
against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature
in Assam dismissing the appellants' application under
Art. 226 challenging the orders of the first respondent Shri B. L. Sen, Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar,
whereby he allowed the applications filed on behalf of
the labourers employed in the Teok Tea Estate and
the Dalim Tea Estate under section 20 of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948), hereinafter referred
to as the Act.
On March 11: 1952, the Government of Assam, in
exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3 read with
sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Act issued the following notification:
"No. GLR. 352/51/56.-In exercise of the powers
conferred by section 3 read with sub-section (2) of
section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of
1948), as amended, the Governor of Assam, having
considered
the advice of the
committee
appointed
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the
said Act, is pleased to fix minimum wages, which will
come into force with effect from the 30th March, 1952,
consisting of basic wages and dearness allowance in
terms. of clause ( 1) of sub-section 1 of section 4 of the
said Act, at the rates as specified in
the
schedule
hereto
annexed
payable
to
employees
employed
in tea. plantations in the different districts of Assam.
2. These
rates
are
exclusive
of
con.cessions·
enjoy~d by the workers in respect of Sl\pplies of foodstuffs and
othe.r
essential
commodities and other
amenities which will continue unaffected. Tht: eristing
S.CJ.t
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
361
tasks and hours of work may continue until further
orders.
SCHEDULE
1.
ORDINARY UNSKILLED LABOUR
Adult male.
(I 6 years & above)
Basic
D.A.
T9tal.
wage.
{p.d.)
(p.d.)
(p.cl.)
2. Rest
Rs.
of Assam As. 12/·
As. 6/-
1/2/·
Valley.
Adult female.
(16 years & above}
Basic
D.A.
Total.
wage.
{p;d.)
(p.d.)
(p.d.)
Rs.
As. II/·
As. 5/·
1/+
By notification No. GLR. 44/51, dated the 16th
April, 1952, the said Government ihtroduced the Minimum Wages Rules which, inter alza, provided~
"Rule 24.. Number of hours of work which shall
constitute a normal working day.-
(1) The number of hours which shall wnstitute
a normal working day shaU be-
( a) in the case of an adult, 9 hours·; subject
to a maximum of 48 hours in a week';
,,
By another notification No. GLR. 352/51 dated
May 12, 1952, the said Government explained that
the word "may" mentioned in the notification dated
March 11, 1952, will have the force of "shall".
The
result was that in cl. (2) of the said notification, the
last sentence ran as : "The existing tasks
and hours
of work .shall continue until further orders."
Prior to the fixatibn of the minimum wages (consisting of basic wage1> and dearness allowance) as aforesaid, the labourers engaged in plucking tea leaves in
these tea estates used to be paid basic wages for male
labourers at as. 8/- per day fur plucking 16 seers of
green leaves and for female labourers at as. 6/- per
day for plucking 12 seers of green
leave~. This was
the work-load
Or' task in respect of which the basic
wages 0£ as. 8/- anti as. 6/· respectively were paid to
these labourers apan from the dearrress allowance in
addition to such basic wages. If the labourets plucked
l~rget quantities of green leaves they used t<>
be
1956
.&. M • .&Uison
v.
B.L.Sm
Bltagwati J.
-.-
,j, M. 411ison
. v.
B. L. Sm
BhagwatiJ.
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
paid by way of ticca extra wages at tbe rate of 6 ps.
per seer in excess of 16 seers and 12 seers respectively.
It may be noted that tbe payment of basic wages on
the above computation also worked out at tbe rate
of 6 ps. per seer of green leaves plucked by tbe
labourers.
Even after tbe fixation of tbe minimum wages by
tbe said notification, the managers of these tea estates
continued to pay to tbe labourers wages at tbe rate of
6 ps. per seer of green leaves plucked by tbem. They,
however, in view
of the fact that as. 12/-
per day
were fixed as the basic wages for the male labourers
and as. 11/- per day as tbe basic wages for tbe female
labourers,
refused
to
make
any extra
payment
to
tbem on tbe basis of 6 ps. per seer unless the green
leaves plucked hy tbem exceeded 24 seers and 22 seers
respectively,
tbus maintaining
their old standard of
payment on the basis of 6 ps. per seer. The labourers
contended
tbat the
existing work-load or task at
tbe date of the said notification was 16 seers for male
labourers and 12 seers for female labourers and they
were entitled to such extra payment at tbe rate of 6 ps.
per seer for leaves plucked by them in excess of the 16
seers and 12 seers respectively.
There was a difference
tbus in payment, of as. 4/- per day in the case of male
labourers and as. 5/ - per day in tbe
case of female
labourers and they claimed that the managers of the
tea estates should pay them the basic wages of as. 12/-
per day and as. 11/- per day respectively for the workload or task of 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers
for female labourers and extra wages at the rate of
6 ps. per seer of leaves plucked by them in excess of
those quantities.
This claim of theirs was the subject-matter of the
applications filed on their behalf before tbe Deputy
Commissioner, Sibsagar, under s. 20(2) of the Act. The
applicants asked for directions under s. 20(3) to tbe
managers of the tea estates for payment of the difference
between
tbe
minimum
wages
fixed
by
tbe
Government and the wages actually paid to them from
March 30, 1952, which was the date from which tbe
notification came into force. The managers of the
s,c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
363
estates contested
these
applications
mainly on two
grounds, viz., ( 1) th.at the applications were not maintainable under s. 20 of the Act, and (2) that there was
no fixed work-load or task in respect of plucking for
earning daily basic wages before the introduction of
the
minimum wages.
The Deputy
Commissioner,
Sibsagar, who was the authority appointed under the
Act to hear the claims arising out of the payment of
less than the minimum rates of wages to these labourers,
entertained the applications,
recorded evidence and
heard arguments addressed to him by both the parties
As regards the first objection, he held that, if the
appliqmts' version was true there was a clear case of
payment of less than the minimum wages fixed by the
Government and the applications were maintainable
under s. 20 of the Act. As regards the second objection, he
came to the conclusion on the evidence
recorded
before
him
that there was a work-load
or task of 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers
for
female
labourers in respect of the daily basic
wages of as. 8/- and as. 6/- respectively earned by them
before the fixation of the minimum wages by the said
notification, that such work-load or task was the basis
of the. fixation of the minimum wages consisting, inter
alia, of the basic wages of as. 12/- per day for male
labourers and as. 11/-
per day for female labourers
and that the labourers
were,
therefore, entitled
to
extra payment for
green leaves plucked by them
in excess of
16 seers and
12 seers respectively at
the rate of 6 ps. per seer. He accordingly ordered
that the managers must pay the labourers engaged in
plucking tea leaves the minimum basic wages at the
rate of as. 12/- per day to the male labourers for 16
seers of green leave.s and as. 11/- per day to the female
labourers for 12 seers of green leaves and extra wages
at the rate of 6 ps. per seer for green leaves plucked in
excess of those quantities.
The managers of the estates thereupon filed applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the
High Court of Judicature in Assam raising the same
contentions which had been negatived by the Deputy
Commissioner, Sibsagar.
The High Court dismissed
i956
..4. M • .4.lli.soti
v.
B.L.Stn
Bliagwati J.
1956
A. M; All!son
v.
B. L.Stn
Bhagwati J.
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
these
applications and granted the certificates under
Art. 133(1) (c) and that is how these appeals come
before us.
It is urged in the first instance that the notification
dated March 11, 1952, fixed only 'a minimum time
rate' and no more.
Under s. 3(2) of the Act it was
competent to the Government to fix (a) a minimum
rate of wages for time work (called "a minimum time
rate"), (b) a minimum rate of wages for piece work
(called "a minimum piece rate") or (c) a minimum
rate to be -applied in the case of employees employed
on piece work for the purpose of securing to such
employees a minmum rate of wages on a time work
basis (called "a guaranteed time rate") and what was
done by the Government was to fix "a minimum time
rate" within the meaning of s. 3(2) (a) so that the
labourers were to be paid the basic wages mentioned in
the Schedule regardless of their out-turn of work.
If
this contention is correct, the labourers would not be
entitled to any extra wages for the quantities of green
leaves plucked by them in excess of the 16 seers or 12
seers per day which was alleged to be
the existing
work-load or task at the date of the notification.
It
is, therefore, urged that prior to such fixation of
minimum wages there was no work-load or task for
the labourers engaged in plucking tea leaves.
This
contention is obviously unsound.
Both
the Deputy
Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the High Court found as
a fact that before the fixation of the minimum wages
as above, there was a basic work-load or task of 16
seers of leaves for the male labourers and 12 seers of
leaves for the female labourers.
This was proved by
the evidence of the Hazira Moharers of these estates
and this was recognized by the Government itself when
it stated in the notification that "the existing tasks
and hours of work shall continue until further orders."
If the minimum basic wages were fixed irrespective of
existing work-load or task and what was fixed was "a
minimmn time rate" as contended by the appellants
there was no need whan:ver to mention this in the
notiJication.
The direction that the existing workload or task was to continue until further orders on the
S:C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
365
contrary goes to show that the basic wages mentioned
in the Schedule were correlated to the existing workload or task "and as. 12/- for the male labourers and
as. 11/- for the female labourers were fixed in regard
to the existing work-load or task of 16 seers of tea
leaves to be plucked by the male labourers and 12 seers
of tea leaves to be plucked by the female labourers.
It is argued that the continuance of the existing
work-load or task which was thus provided for had no
relation to the basic wages which were fixed for the
male and female labourers respectively but was only
intended to prevent the employers frum increasing the
existing work-load or task with a view to make up for
the increase in basic wages.
This argument, however,
does riot take count of the fact that there was existing
at the date of the notification a work-load or task
which was the basis of the payments used to be made
to the labourers, the basic wages paid to them being
calculated at the rate of 6 ps. per seer of tea leaves
plucked by them.
The labourers were thus being paid
the basic wages of as. 8/- for male labourers and as. 6/-
for female labourers for the work-load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of tea leaves respectively and
the sole intention of
the Government in issuing the
notification was tc increase these basic wages of as. 8/-
and as. 6/- to . as. 12/- and as. 11/- respectively while
maintaining the same basic work-load or task assigned
to the male and female labourers.
If the intention
was not to correlate these basic wages to the basic
work-load or task which already existed and if the
same state of affairs was
to continue, viz., that the
labourers would continue to be paid the basic wages on
the computation of 6 ps. per seer of green leaves
plucked by them,
there was no sense whatever in
increasing the basic wages from as. 8/- to as. 12/- for
male labourers and from as. 6/- to as. 11/- for female
labourers as was sought to be done by issuing the
notification in question.
The acceptance of the contention of the appellants would mean that no advantage
whatever was sought to be conferred by the Government on the labourers engaged in plucking leaves in
these
tea
estates
which
intention
can
scarcely be
-1956
A. J,f. Allison
v.
B..L. Sen
BhagwaJi].
1956
.A. M . .Allison
v.
B. L. Seo
Bhagwau'].
.366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19571
attributed to the Government. We are,
therefore, of
opinion that what was fixed
by
the notification was
not merely "a minimum time rate" irrespective of the
existing work-load or task which used to be performed
by the labourers but was a minimum wage which,
though fixed for time work, was necessarily correlated
to the work-load or task then being performed by these
labourers so that whatever extra work was done by the
labourers in excess of the existing work-load or task of
plucking 16 seers of tea leaves in the case of male
labourers and 12 seers of tea leaves in the case
of
female labourers had to be paid for in accordance with
the practice then prevailing, whether it was based on
agreement or ticca or custom, at the rate of 6 ps. per
seer. · The conclusions reached in this behalf both by
the Deputy Commissioner,
Sibsagar, and the High
Court are, therefore, correct and cannot be challenged.
The appellants, however, contend that this is not a
case of payment of less than the minimum rates of
wages and the claims, .if any, of the labourers do not
fall within s. 20 of the Act. The tea estates in question have never refused to pay and are in fact paying
to the labourers. the basic wages of as. 12/- per day for
male labourers and as. 11/- per day for female labourers
and the grievance, if any, of the labourers is that they
have not been paid the extra wages calculated on the
ba•is of 6 ps. per seer for tea leaves plucked by them
in exce•s of the basic work-load or task of 16 seers for
male labourers and 12 seers for female labourers. This
claim of the labourers, therefore, amounts to a claim
for extra wages over and above the basic wages of
as. 12/- and as. 11/- per day respectively which are
being paid to them and, therefore, is
not a claim
ariilng out of the payment of less than the minimum
rates of wages within the meaning of s. 20(1) of the Act
and the
Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim.
Section 20 so far as is material for our purposes
provide>:
"20. Claims.-
(1) The appropriate
Government
may, by
notification in the official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
367
for
Workmen's Compensation or other officer with
experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary
Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for
any specified area all claims arising out of payment of
less than the minimum rates of wages to employees
employed or paid in that area.
(2) Where an employee is paid less
than the
minimum rates of wages fixed for his class of work
under this Act, the employee himself, or any legal
practitioner of any official of a registered trade
union
authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any
Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of
the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may
apply to such Authority for a direction under subsection (3) : ................ ..
(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is
entertained,
the
Authority
shall hear the applicant
and the employer or give them an opportunity of being
heard, and after such further enquiry if any as it may
consider
necessary,
may, without prejudice
to any
other penalty to which the employer may be liable
under this Act, direct the payment to the employee
of the amount by which the minimum wages payable
to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with
the payment of such compensation as the Authority
may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of
such excess and the Authority may direct payment of
such compensation in cases where the
excess is paid
by the employer to the employee before the disposal of
the application.
(6) Every
direction of the
Authority
under this
section shall be final."
It is argued that the authority appointed under
s. 20(1) of the Act is invested with the powers of
hearing and deciding claims arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages and is
authorised to hear the applicant and the employer or
give them an .opportunity of being heard, and, after
such further enquiry, as it may consider necessary, to
give directions under s. 20(3) of the Act which directions are final and
not subject
to
any
appeal or
48
1956
.d. M. Allison
v.
B.L.Sm
Bhagwati].
1956
A. M. Allison
v.
B.L.Sm
Bhagwati ].
363
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
revision
by
any
higher
authority.
Such
drastic
powers
could
not have been meant to be exercised
when there are complicated questions of law or fact
but could be exercised only in cases where the quantum
of minimum wages fixed by the notification in question could be determined by the authority on a plain
reading of the
terms thereof.
Then and then only
would the
authority
have
jurisdiction
to
entertain
such claims and give the necessary directions having
the attribute of finality. In the instant cases before
us,
not
only
did the matters involve complicated
questions of fact which required recording of evidence
by the authority but they also involved the construction of the notification which was
by no means
felicitously worded.
The existing tasks which were
to continue until further orders were not at all patent
and if the determination thereof had to be made bv
the authority appointed under s. 20(1) of the Act, tt
would involve, m cases of dispute, recording of considerable evidence and an
adjudication of the
same
after a
consideration
of
the arguments advanced
before the authority by both the parties.
There is in the instant cases moreover a further
difficulty and it is that there are two rival contentions
which can, with equal force, be urged by the respective
parties. The appellants contend
that
they havt
all throughout been paying to the labourers, after the
date of the notification in question, basic wages at
the rate of as. 12/-
per day for male labourers and
as. 11/- per day for the female labourers and there is no
instance which has been cited on behalf of the respondents where anything less than the minimum basic
wages thus fixed by the Government has ever been
paid. The claim of the labourers comes to this that
they have not been paid the extra wages for plucking
green leaves in excess of the basic work-load or task of
16 seers
and
12 seers
respectively. Such claim for
extra wages certainly does
not amount
tb a claim
arising out of the payment of less than the minimum
rates of wages.
It is, on the other hand, contended
on behalf of the respondents that the basic wages of
as. 12/-
per day for male labourers and as. 11/- per
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
369
day for female labourers fixed under the notification
are correlated to the existing work-load or task of
plucking green leaves weighing 16 seers and 12 seers
respectiyely and if they are entitled to the payment
of these basic wages on their putting forward that
much quantity of work, the non-payment by the
managers of these
tea estates to them of a,ny extra
wages on the computation of 6 ps. per extra seer unless they plucked 24 seers and 2Z seers of green leaves
respectively
is
tantamount to
non-payment of the
minimum basic wages of as. 12/- and as. 11/- respectively as fixed in the notification.
We do not propose to decide this question of
jurisdiction as in the instant cases we have, in addition to the determination of the Deputy Commissioner,
Sibsagar, the adjudication of the main disputes between the parties by the High Court itself.
Whatever
infirmities might possibly have attached to the orders
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, on the
score of want of jurisdiction, we feel that having
regard to the circumstance that the matters have been
pending since September, 1952, right up to the end of
the year 1956, no useful purpose will be served by our
interfering at this stage, as the Deputy Commissioner,
Sibsagar, and the High Court both came to the same
conclusion, a conclusion which we also h•ve endorsed
above, that the labourers are entitled to be paid the
basic wages of as. 12/- per day for male labourers and
as. ll/- per day for female labourers for the work-load
or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green
leaves
respectively
and
they
are entitled to extra
wages for every seer of green leaves plucked by them
over and above these quantities of 16 seers and 12
seers
respectively, at the computation of 6 ps.
per
seer.
There are moreover special reasons why we should
not interfere with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, in these appeals.
The matters do
not come to us by way of appeal directly from the
orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar.
They
were the subject, in the first instance, of proceeding~
Wlder Art. 226 of the Constitution h1 the High Court
1956
A. M.Al/i.son
v.
B. L.Sen
Bhagwoti ].
1956
A. M. Allison
v.
B. L. Stn
Bhagwati].
Dtctmbtr 21
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
of Assam. Proceedings by way of certiorari are "not
of Course".
(Vide Halsbury's 'Laws of England',
Hailsham Edition, Vol. 9, para. 1480 and 1481, pp.
877-878).
The High Court of Assam had the power
to
r~fuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was
no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are
directed against the orders of the High Court in
applications under Art. 226, we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case
requires it. But we are not so satisfied.
We are of
opinion that, having regard to the merits which have
been concurrently found in favour of the respondents
both by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the
High Court, we should decline to interfere.
This being the point of substance which has been
decided in favour of the respondents, we are of the
opinion that the appeals are liable to . be dismissed.
We accordingly dismiss them but having regard
to
the particular circumstances which we have adverted
to before, we order that each party will bear and pay
its own costs of these appeals.
Appeal dismiSJed.
HARISH CHANDRA BAJPAI
"·
TRILOKI SINGH
(BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR,
B.
P.
SINHA
and S. K. DAs JJ.)
Election
Dispute-Petition
grounded
on corrupt practices-
'Matter', if of_ wider
import
than
'particulars'-'Trial',
meaning
of-'Procedure', if includeJ
'powers'-Amendment, if
and
when
permissible-Power of E'lection Tribunal-Person, when can be sai'd
to be employed
for
purposes of election-Contract of service and
contract for services-Di"sti'nction-Representation
of the People Act
(XL!// of 1951), ss. 81, 83, els. (1), (2) & (3), 90(2), 92, 123 els.
(7) & (8)-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. VJ, r. 17.
The rcspon<lent filed a petition under s. 81 of the
Represen~
tation of the People Act challenging the election of the appellants
1 to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative
A~sembly on the ground that
they
had committed corrupt practices,
the
material allegations