# WORKMEN OF THE BOMBAY PORT TRC'ST v. TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBA y

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 36
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. DAs GUPTA, J. c. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-of-the-bombay-port-trc-st-v-trustees-of-port-of-bomba-y-2428
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

•
,.
[ndu,trial Di.opute-JVag,.-If payable for Sunday IM
''l·reekly off" day on uihich no 1r.ork was do"'- and for .<;unda~ 011
which worl: 1c<ZR dom without compnnatory nJI day-1/nte-Week/y
I'
holi<lay, meaning of-Minimum Wag,. Ar.I, W48 (XI~( J.948),
.<.13-Minimum Wages Rulu, r. 23.
The Minimum
Wages Act, 194-8, and the Minimum
\\'ages Rules, framed thereunder, laid down the principle that
the Government should provide f'or a day of1cst to the workers
for every period of 7 days and also to make provisions for making some payment in connection therewith. The dispute
between the workers and employers oft he present cruc related
to (a) arrears of wages for Sunday, the "weekly off" day on
which no work was done and (b) arrears of wages for work
., ..
..
.,.
..
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
done on Sundays which should have been given as a weekly
oft' day but was not so given and no compensatory day was
given in lieu thereof as contemplated under the Minimum
Wages Rules.
As regards arrears of wages for , Sundays un
which no work was done the workmen's case was that they
were entitled to payment for each such Sunday amounts equal
to their average daily wages during the preceding week, that
for the work done on Sundays without the compensatory '1ofl'
day" they were entitled to three times the ordinary rate. The
respondents's case was that on a proper interpretation of
r. 23 of the Minimnm (Wages Central) Rules, 1960, the Workmen were not entitled to payment for Sundays on which no
work was done and that in any case they had been constructively paid for Sundays inasmuch as the daily wages were fixed
at I/26th of the monthly wages. The Industrial Tribunal
rejected all the claims of the workmen.
On appeal by
special leave.
Held, that contravention of r. 23 of the Minimum
Wages Rules was punishable under the Minimum Wages Act
but the Industrial Tribunal had no authority to impose penalty
in the shape of making the employer pay in respect of work
done on Sundays something more than what he would have
otherwise to pay. Neither the Minimum Wages Act nor the
Rules contain any provision for such additional payment over
and above what would be payable for over time work as such .
The workmen thCrefore ·cannot get three times the ordinary rate.
The phrase "for which" in r. 23 referred to the weekly
holiday ·whether it was on a Sunday or on any other day of
the wee!< as permitted under the Rules. No distinction was
made between the holiday on the ·first day of the week and
holiday on one of the' five days immediately before or after
the said day. The scheme was for one holiday in·the week and
it was for that holiday that payment was provided.
TrU81ees of the Port of Bombay v. Authority under the
Payment of Wagea Act, (1957) 1 L.L.J.
627, A. 0. 0. v .
Labour ln•pector, (1960) I L. L. J.
192 and Jaswant Sugar
Mille v. Suh-divisional Magistrate,
(1960) 2 L. L. J. 373,
approved.
The Central Government clearly intended under the
Minimum Wages Rules that for ~ork on a holiday something
more than what was actually paid for six days of the week
should be paid. This could not be defeated by a statement
that in form six days wages were paid, but in fact an.cl in
substance seven days wages were paid.
The plea of constructive payment must fail.
The argument that r. 23 did not apply to the workmen
of the present case after the introduction of the piece rate
scheme introduced in this case must be rejected.
1951 -
Workme1 of the
Bombay Porl Trust
v.
Trustees of Port of
Bombay
\
Ji ·orkrMn of IN
non bay Pt.ri Tnut
v.
TruJtrtJ ~J Port of
Ramta.1
Das G•Pla Jo
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i962] SUPP.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jrmsmcnol\: Civil AppC'al
No. 529/1959.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
February 28, 1!)58, of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal. Cnlcutia, in reference No. G
of 1957.
H. R. r.okhale, Ye8hu·ant Chitale, Ratna Rao
and K. R. Ghoudhri, for the appiillants.
S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. G. Mathur
and Rwinder Narain, for resp

## Text

Ifl61
flhagamwar i.· ar slntli
v.
S.S. <htwal
Sar/car J,
l!Ml
Octol1r JO.
36 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
As we understood Mr. Sen, he also accepted that
the Welfare Officer contemplated is one appointed
in respect of one mine. Now, the appellant was on
his own case, the Welfare Officer of several mines of
the Company and not of one of such mines only.
Therefore, we think that he was not a Welfare
Officer within r. 72(1) and hence not within the proviso to r. 74(2).
But Mr. Sen contends that the appellant
might be considered as having been severally and
inclepcndently appointed the Welfare Officer of each
of thP- Company's several collieries in his charge.
'We think that that would be an impos8ible view to
take. One appointment cannot be treated as
several appointments and it .is not in dispute that
the appellant had only one appointment for all the
Company's collieries.
We think that this appeal fails and we dismiss
it with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
WORKMEN OF THE BOMBAY PORT TRC'ST
v.
TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBA y
(K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAs GUPTA and
J. c. SHAH, J.J.)
•
,.
[ndu,trial Di.opute-JVag,.-If payable for Sunday IM
''l·reekly off" day on uihich no 1r.ork was do"'- and for .<;unda~ 011
which worl: 1c<ZR dom without compnnatory nJI day-1/nte-Week/y
I'
holi<lay, meaning of-Minimum Wag,. Ar.I, W48 (XI~( J.948),
.<.13-Minimum Wages Rulu, r. 23.
The Minimum
Wages Act, 194-8, and the Minimum
\\'ages Rules, framed thereunder, laid down the principle that
the Government should provide f'or a day of1cst to the workers
for every period of 7 days and also to make provisions for making some payment in connection therewith. The dispute
between the workers and employers oft he present cruc related
to (a) arrears of wages for Sunday, the "weekly off" day on
which no work was done and (b) arrears of wages for work
., ..
..
.,.
..
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
done on Sundays which should have been given as a weekly
oft' day but was not so given and no compensatory day was
given in lieu thereof as contemplated under the Minimum
Wages Rules.
As regards arrears of wages for , Sundays un
which no work was done the workmen's case was that they
were entitled to payment for each such Sunday amounts equal
to their average daily wages during the preceding week, that
for the work done on Sundays without the compensatory '1ofl'
day" they were entitled to three times the ordinary rate. The
respondents's case was that on a proper interpretation of
r. 23 of the Minimnm (Wages Central) Rules, 1960, the Workmen were not entitled to payment for Sundays on which no
work was done and that in any case they had been constructively paid for Sundays inasmuch as the daily wages were fixed
at I/26th of the monthly wages. The Industrial Tribunal
rejected all the claims of the workmen.
On appeal by
special leave.
Held, that contravention of r. 23 of the Minimum
Wages Rules was punishable under the Minimum Wages Act
but the Industrial Tribunal had no authority to impose penalty
in the shape of making the employer pay in respect of work
done on Sundays something more than what he would have
otherwise to pay. Neither the Minimum Wages Act nor the
Rules contain any provision for such additional payment over
and above what would be payable for over time work as such .
The workmen thCrefore ·cannot get three times the ordinary rate.
The phrase "for which" in r. 23 referred to the weekly
holiday ·whether it was on a Sunday or on any other day of
the wee!< as permitted under the Rules. No distinction was
made between the holiday on the ·first day of the week and
holiday on one of the' five days immediately before or after
the said day. The scheme was for one holiday in·the week and
it was for that holiday that payment was provided.
TrU81ees of the Port of Bombay v. Authority under the
Payment of Wagea Act, (1957) 1 L.L.J.
627, A. 0. 0. v .
Labour ln•pector, (1960) I L. L. J.
192 and Jaswant Sugar
Mille v. Suh-divisional Magistrate,
(1960) 2 L. L. J. 373,
approved.
The Central Government clearly intended under the
Minimum Wages Rules that for ~ork on a holiday something
more than what was actually paid for six days of the week
should be paid. This could not be defeated by a statement
that in form six days wages were paid, but in fact an.cl in
substance seven days wages were paid.
The plea of constructive payment must fail.
The argument that r. 23 did not apply to the workmen
of the present case after the introduction of the piece rate
scheme introduced in this case must be rejected.
1951 -
Workme1 of the
Bombay Porl Trust
v.
Trustees of Port of
Bombay
\
Ji ·orkrMn of IN
non bay Pt.ri Tnut
v.
TruJtrtJ ~J Port of
Ramta.1
Das G•Pla Jo
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i962] SUPP.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jrmsmcnol\: Civil AppC'al
No. 529/1959.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
February 28, 1!)58, of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal. Cnlcutia, in reference No. G
of 1957.
H. R. r.okhale, Ye8hu·ant Chitale, Ratna Rao
and K. R. Ghoudhri, for the appiillants.
S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. G. Mathur
and Rwinder Narain, for respondent No. I.
1961. October 10. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal by special leave
is against an award of the Central Governmn1t
Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in a dispute referr~d
to that Tribunal by the Central Government under
s. I 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act between the
workmen of the Bombay Port Trust, who are the
appPllants before us and the Trustees of the Port
of Bombay, the respondents in the appeal. 1bc
workmen concerned in the dispute as referred are
shore workers belonging to "A" category, "B"
category and casu&I category. These three categories came into existence under the scheme adopted
by the Bombay Port Trust in April 1948 for direct
employment of shore workers in place of the system
previously in force under which such labourers used
to be supplied by contractors known as Toliwallas.
The matters in dispute were specified thus in the
letter of reference to the Tribunal :-
"Arrears due to the shore workers belonging to the "A" Mtegory, "B" category and
casual category in respect of
(i) weekly off with pay for the period
15th March, 1951 to 2nd March, 1956;
(ii) work on weekly off days during the
period 15th March, 1951 to 2nd. M~rch, 1956,
without a compenaatory day off m lieu; and
t
..
•
'
.. .
..
(I) s.c.n.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
39
(iii) average daily wages fo-r the weekly
off days after the introduction of the piece-rate
schPILe with effect from 3rd March, 1956,
when the average fluctuated from week to
week."
It became clear at the hearing before the
Tribunal that of the period mentioned in Item ( i)
and Item (ii), viz., the 15th March, 1951 to
2nd March, 1956, no "weekly off" was given at all
from the 15th March 1951 to October 1953 but
workmen were made to work generally for all the
7 days of the week, and further that from October,
1953 to 2nd March, 1956, Sunday was given as the
"weekly off" and no work was taken on that day.
The real dispute therefore as regards Itqn (i) and
Item (ii) was in respect of (a) arrears of wages for
Sunday the weekly off on which no work was done
from October, 1953 to March 2 1956, and (b) arrears·
of wages for work done during the period 15th March,
1951 to October, 1953 on Sundays which should
have been given as a weekly off day but was not,
though no compensatory day was given in lieu
thereof.
As regards arrears of wages for Sundays on
which no work was done the worksmen's case is
that they were entitled to receive payment for each
such Sunday amounts equal to their average daily
wages during the preceding week. But admittedly
no payment was made for these Sundays. The
respondent's case however is that on a proper
interpretation of Rules 23 of the Minimum Wages
(Central) Rules, 1960, the workmen were not entitled to payment for Sundays on which no work was
done by them and further that in any case they
have been constructively paid for the Sund~ys a,lso
inasmuch as the daily wages were fixed at l /26th
of the monthly wage.
The Tribunal accepted these contentions
raised on behalf of the employer and .held that
there were no arrears of wages in respect of Sundays
1961
1'Vorkmtn of the
Bombay Port Trust
••
'Jiustus of Port nj
Bombay
Das Gupta].
,
Ml
SUPREME QOURT ~EPORTS [1962) SUPP.
l!Jlil
Wo,.kmen of the
Bombay Porl Trullt
for which no work was done.
With.regard to the
period March 15, 1951 to October, '1953 it appears
the workmen except morphias were paid at twice
the ordinary rate inclusive o.f all allowances, for
all work done on Sundays; Morphias were pa.id
v.
Trtu.lees of Porl of
Br,mit'J
Dc.sGupti1J.
0110 and a half times the normal rates of wages.
The worker8' case is that for the work done on
Sun•l<l·YS during this period they were entitled to
thn·o time8 the ordinary rate. This claim was also
rejected .by the TribUI)B:l which however held that
tho i\forphlas were entitled to double their wages
inclusive of all allowances and so directed that they
shall be paid for .work <;Iorie by them on weekly rest
days from 15th March,. 1951 to October 1953 the
difference between· double thelr wages inclusive of
all allqwances and what they· have been pa.id.
We may state at once that the dispute as
regards Hrrears due'to workers belonging to "casual"
category has not been pressed before us and does
not therefore require consideration in this appeal.
The claim as regards arrears of wages for the
period March 15, 1951, to October 1953 (except
what has already·heen awarded.for this period to
Morphias) does not also merit ssirious consideration
;i.s .the learned ,counsel for the appellant was una.):il6"'-- ~
to show any legal basis for such a claim. He tried
to persuade us that as Rule 23 of the Minimum
Wages (Central) Rules requires the employer to
give a .weekly holiday on Sunday (unless this is
, given on some other day instead) it is not right
that when the employer does not comply with that
requii;ement he should· get of( with paying nothing
more than what he would have paid for such work
done oμ any da.y of the week because of the Rules
in respect of extra payment for over-time work.
The.. Minimum Wages Act, 1948 itself contains'
provisions for ·contravention "of the provil!ions of
the Act or Rules or Orders made 'thereunder.
Section 22 provides for punishment inter alia for
contravention of rules or orders under sectioμ 13.
Seotton t2A provides for 'Punishment with' fine
f''
•·
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
41
(which may extend to five hundred rupees) for
contravention of any provision of the Act or of any
rule or order made thereunder if no other penalty
is provided for such contravention. The Minimum
Wages Rules were made by the Central Government
in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 30 of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948) and so
contravention of rule 23 of thes~ rules is punishable
under section 22A of the Act. Whether or not any
action is taken against the employer for such
contravention, the Industrial Tribunal has no
authority to impose some other penalty in the shape
of ma.king the employer pay in respect of work done
on Sundays something more than what he would
have otherwise have to pay. Neither the Minimum
Wages Act nor the Rules contain any provision for
such additional payment over and above what
would be payable for over time work as such. The
workmen's claim for further payment in respect of
work done on Sunday during, the period March 15,
1951 to October 1953 has therefore been rightly
rejected.
In respect of the claim for pay on Sundays
during the period October 1953 to March 2, 1956,
on which no work was done we have first to decide
on the correct interpretation of the words "for
which" in Rule 23, as it stood before it was amended by a Notification GSR 918 dated the 29th July,
1960. The Rule as it stood before the amendment
ran thus:-
"23. Weekly Holidays-(!) Unless otherwise permitted by the Central Government, no
worker shall be required or allowed to work
in a scheduled employment, on the first day
of the week (herei~fter referred to as the said
day) except when he has or will have a
holiday for the whole day on one of the five
days immediately before or after the said day
for which he shall receive payment equal to
his average daily wages during the preceding
week:
1i6J
1¥orkm1n of tM
Bombay Port r rust
v.
Tru!ltes of Port of
Bombay
Da' G.pta ].
l~l
H 'orkmen of tlu
Bombo,y Port T ruJt
v:
T '1JJkes of Porl of
BM>lbay
Das G.pta J.
4l!
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SuPP.
• ~
Provided that the weekly holidays may be
substituted by another day :
Provided further that no substitution
shall be made which will result in any worker
working for more than ten days consecutively
without a holiday for a whole day."
We a.re not concerned with cl. 2 of Rule 23.
The
Explanation to
the
Rule is in the following
words:-
"Explanation-For the purpose of this
rule "week'' shall mean a period of seven days
beginning at midnight on Saturday night."
The main policy underlying the rule obviously
is that workmen shall have full rest at frequent
"
intervals-ordinarily once in every 7 days but in no
case &t intervals of more than IO days. This was
clearly in aceordanoe with the principle laid down
ins. 13 of the Minimum Wages Act that the Government may provide for a day of re~t for every period
of 7 days even though in framing the Minimum
Wages (Central) Rules 1960 (which eoverH many
4
other matters other than the matters mentioned in
s.13) no reference has been made to section 13 at
all. In giving effect to this policy of providing for
a day of rest-ordinarily once in 7 days but in no
case at intervals of more than IO days-the rulemaking authority has thought fit also to make provision for making some payment in connection with
this. Difficulty has however been caused by the
unfortunate complexcity of the sentence, in which
the ma.in provision as regards the da.y of rest and
.,.
also the subsidiary provision for payment have been
combined.
The dispute is about the meaning of the words
"for which". If one remembers the rule of grammar
that what the grammarians ca.II the "antecedent"
(that is the noun or pronoun to which a. relative
pronoun relates) should be used as neat 88 poesible
to the relative pronoun, one is tempted to think
that "which" relates to the word "day" of the "said
..
-
(1) s.C.R.
SUPREME OOO'R.'1' lt:F!PORTS
43
da.y" immediately preceding the preposition "for".
Breaking up this last portion of the rule, the rule
thus analysed would be equivalent to "and for the
said day he shall receive payment equal to his
average daily wages during the preceding· week".
That will be however only a grammarian's construe·
tion. In the Courts however while we have· to
remember the rules of grammar, because such rules
are ordinarily observed by people in expressing their
intentions, we have to look a little more closely to
understand the real intention expressed. It seems
to us unreasonable to impute the rule-ma;king authority an intention that while if the weekly rest is
given "on the said day" that is, Sunday the work·
men shall receive payment, he shall rec11ive no pay·
ment if and when the employer takes advantage of
the provisions that no workman may be required
or allowed to work on Sunday when "he has or will
have a holiday for the whole day on one of tjie five
days immediately before or after the sa.id day.''
For, it that be permitted, the employer would
always give the weekly holiday on one of the 5 days
immediately before or after the Sunday and thus
avoid payment for the rest day. It seems clear to
us therefore. that in using the words "for which"
after the words "the said day'.' the rule-making
authority did not intend to confine the word "which"
to this "said day" but intended to relate this
"which" to any of the days on which rest is given.
In other words, "for which" was used as short for
"a.nd on such holiday whether on the sa.id day or
not". We do not think the rules of grammar stand
in the way of this interpretation .
.Mr. Desai's argument on behalf of the respon·
dent is that "which" relates to the word "holiday"
and that. accordingly it is only when the workman
has or will ha.ve a holiday on one of the five days
immediately before or after the said da.y, that he
sha.11 receive payment. According to him, the two
phrases "for the whole day" a<id "one of the five days
immediately before or a.fter the said d:i.y" are adver·
1961
fVorkmen oftlu
Bombay Port Trust
v.
Trustus of Port of
Bomh4y
Das Gupta J.
1961
H 'orkmtn rij llit
Bornbay PorJ TrUJl
v.
T'1ut·r.i nf Port of
Jlomb~y
Das Gup1a J.
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
bial phrases modifyin~ the verb "has" and "will
ha,·c" and no part of these phrase~ can have any
co11nection with the words "for which".
Leaving
theHe put, the rule properly analysed ii!, he sa.ys, in
really two portions : the first being "no worker
shall be required or allowed to work in a scheduled
employment, on the first day of week"; the second
hei11g "except when he has or will have a holiday
for which he shall receive payment equal to his
average daily wage~ during the preceding week".
That will however be to re· write the sentence in a
mann~r for whi(;h we can find no justification.
It
i~ proper to remember also that this interpretation
will have the peculiar conoequ3ncc that if the rest
day is given on first day of the week no paym~nt
will have to be made, but if it is givl·n on some
other day payment will have to be made. It will
Le unreasonable to ascribe such an intention to the
legislature.
The Tribunal was so impressed by the unreasonableness of rnch a consequence that it came to
thn conclusion that no payment will be receivable
by the workmen \\hether the weekly rest day is
given on the first day of the week or on one of
tho five days immediately before or after the said
day.
..
•
Heading the over a ti ve portion of this rule
with the proviso that the weekly holiday may be
substituted by another day it app<>ars to us clear
that the rule making authority did not draw any
distinction between the holiday on the first day of
.,
the week or the holiday on one of the five days
immediately before or after the said day. It was
this weekly holiday-whether given on the 1st day
of the week or whether on on<• of the five days
immediately before or nfter the sa.id day-that
under the proviso could be substituted by another
day .. The scheme
clearly is for one holiday,
generally, once in a week and it is for this 0110
holiday that payment is provided.
I
' "
I
..
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
45
Our attention waq drawn to the view taken
by the Bombay High Court in Trnsfoes of the Port of
Bombay v. Authority under the Payment of Wages
Act(') which was followed by the .\fadras High Court
in A.0.0.v. Labour Inspector(') that the proper conRtruction <if the words "for which" is to relate to word
"holiday" preceding the words "for the whole ·day".
In Jaswant Sugar .Mills v. Sub·divisional illagistrate(')
the Allahabad High Court took the view that "for
which" refers to the weekly holiday whether it is
on a Sunday or on any other days of the week as
permitted under the Rules. In our opinion, the
view taken by the Allahabad High Court is correct.
On a proper construction of the rule it must,
in our opinion, be held that the workmen of cetegories A and B were entitled to receive payment
"equal to the average wages during the preceding
week" in respect of the period Octo her 1953 to
March 2, 1956.
This brings us to the employer's claim that
there has been constructive payment
for the
Sundays during this period, viz., October 1953 to
March 2, 1956.
Tho argument is that the daily
wage for these workmen was fixed by dividing all
the components of the monthly scale of pay and
allowances by 26 so that what a workman receives
as daily wage is really I/26th of 'the wage for 30
days.
Thus, it is said, the total receipts for the
26 days, if no seperate payment is made for the
rest days will be 26 xl/26th of 30 days' wage, that
is, 30 days' wage.
Tho fallacy in this argument is
that it ignores the essential fact that once the daily
wage is fixed at a certain figure it no longer retains
its character of being I/26th of the monthly wage.
However arrived at, the daily wage is a daily wage
and it is wrong to regard it as a certain fraeti on of
the monthly wage.
When the Central Goverument
making in these Minimum Wages
Hules made
this provision for payment on a holiday it clearly
(1) 1957 (1) L. L. J. 627.
(2) 1960 (1) L. L. J. 192.
(3) 1960 (II) L. L. J. 373.
1961
lVorl-Jnt11 of tht
BonbtfY Port Trust
v.
Tr~stees of I'orf of
Bombn_y
Dis G:1pta J,
1961
Wo1k'7ttn oftlu
Bombay Port T nul
v.
'l'rusttts of Port of
B""'°'1y
D<s Gupta].
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19tl2) Su'PP.
·intended that something in aflditi<'n to what was
being actually receiv<•d for thf' six days of the
week should be pai<l. This cannot be defeatC'd by a
statement that though in form Rix days wag('s were
being paid, in fact and in suhstancc, seven days
wages were being paid. By no stretch of imagination
can payment for six days be er1uated to payment. for
seven days.
We have therefore come to the conclusion
that the workmen of the A and B categories are
entitled to arrears of wages in respect of Sundays
during the period October 1953 to :lfareh 2, 1956.
With effect from l\Iarch 3, l8;)fi the piece-rate
scheme was introcluced for the shore work<>rs belonging to the "A" category and "B°' catC>gory.
The essentials of this S<"hcme are that a datum line
was fixed for the different kinds of work and t.hP.
piece-rate would vary with the proportion wl1i<-h
the out-turn of the gan'.( bears to the datum line in
the following manner :-
"For a. shift fully occupied in doing piece
rate work the piece r .te wage of the basic gang
worker (inclusive of basic pay and the allowances above mentioned) sludl
rise uniformly from Rs. 3-1-0 at i6% to Rs. 4-fi-O
at 100% to Rs. 8 at 150% of the datum
line. The piece rate wage earned after 150%
of the datum line shall bo processed at rlouble
the daily wage that is to say the piece rate
wage will rise uniforml.v from Rs. 8 at 150%
to Rs. 12 at to 200% of the datum line."
The scheme further provided that :-
"R1. 3-1-0 (comprised of Hs. 1-8-3 basic
was including allowances and Rs. J-9 0
dearness allowance) sh1'11 be the minimum
guaranteed wage per day on which a gang
worker is given employment; if on any day
the piece work earnings plus idle timo payment and/or other earnings under this appendix fall short of tile l!&id minimum, the
. I
~I
'
.,
..
..
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Port Trust shall make up the difference that
day."
"Rs. 3-7-0 (comprised of Rs. 1-14-0 basic
wage including allowances and Rs. 1-9-0 dearness allowance) shall be the minimum guaranteed wage per day on which a morpia is
.
1
t ''
given cmp oymen .
On behalf of the respondent a question was
raised before us that Rule 23 of the Minimum
Wages Rules does not apply to these workmen
after the piece rate scheme was introduced. It is
urged that for such worker there is no daily wage,
as what the piece worker receives varies from day
to day according to his total output. It may even
happen, it is suggested, that on a certain day on
which output is nil, the piece rate worker will receive nothing. Against this, Mr. Gokhale's argument
is that average daily wages during the preceding
week means average of the total earnings per day
during the preceding week and so there can be no
difficulty in
ascertaining for every his worker
his average daily wages during any week.
We are not prepared to accept this construction of average daily wages as average earnings
per day. The daily wage has in the industrial
world a definite significance
in
contn.-distin·
ction to weekly wages or monthly wages. 'fhe
weekly wages or monthly wages of a person
would
not as ordinarily
understood
include
the extra earnings of the workmen by working
"
over-time. So also, in our opinion, the term daily
wages as ordinarily understood does not include
over-time earnings. If it does not include over·
time earnings, can it reasonably be said that it
includes the high additional earnings, that a work·
er may receive by increasing his output above the
minimum fixed? We do not think that to be a
reasonable interpretation of the words "daily
wacrps."
At the same time, we see no reason
why
the
0 guaranteed minimum fixed for ea.ch workman
1961
Workmen of the
Bombay Port Trust
v.
Trrnt11s o.f Port of
Bombay
Das Gupta J.
J9GJ
l1'orAnu11 of the
Bombn)' P~t Trtul
v.
TnlJttts of Porl of
Bomb ... y
Dos Cup 1a ].
48 SL"'PREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
per day should not be considered his daily wages.
The piece rate system introduct>d for these work·
men has fixed such a minimum.
Indeed, the
fixation of such a minimum wage for a piece rate
system makes, it may be said, the pieee rate a time
rate-cum-piece rate in which the guaranteed mini·
mum is the time rate daily wage and the extra
earnings are piece rates. The argument that Rule 23
does not apply to these workmen after the introduction of the piece rate scheme must therefore be
rPjected.
As regards this period also (that is, the pc·
rio<I from March 3, 1956 onwards) Mr. Desai contended that there has been constructive payment
of the workers as the guaranteed minimum was
arrivPd at Ly dividing the monthly wage by :W.
For the reasons for which this argument was rejected in respect of the period October, 1953, to
March 2, 1956, we reject this plea of constructive
payment.
·
We are therefore of opinion that the workers
of categories A and B are entitled to arrears of
wages for the Sundays from March 3, 1956 on the
basis that the guaranteed minimum wage was the
daily wage.
As has already been mentioned, Rule 23 waa
amended in July 1960, i.e., long after the Trihunal gave the award under appeal. We expreBS no
opinion as to what the position in law is, after this
amendment of Rule 23.
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
In the circumstances, the parties will bear their
own costs in this Court.
.Appeal allowed in part.
'
.. .
... ,
•