TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Award Wages Deemed 'Wages' under Payment of Wages Act</h1> <h3>MD. QASIM LARRY, FACTORY MANAGER, SASAMUSA SUGAR WORKS Versus MUHAMMAD SAMSUDDIN AND ANOTHER</h3> The Supreme Court held that wages fixed by an award in an industrial dispute fall within the definition of 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. ... - Issues:Interpretation of the term 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.Applicability of Section 15 of the Act to a dispute regarding wages fixed by an award.Consideration of limitation in claims under Section 15.Validity of the authority's decision regarding the competency of applications under Section 15.Challenge of the High Court's decision affirming the authority's finding.Analysis of the legal position regarding wages prescribed by an award.Interpretation of the term 'wages':The Supreme Court examined whether the term 'wages' under Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, includes remuneration fixed by an award in an industrial dispute. The Court considered the unamended definition and subsequent amendment of the term. The appellant argued that wages prescribed by an award do not constitute part of the contract of employment, thus not falling within the definition of wages. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing the authority of Industrial Tribunals to revise employment terms in the interest of social justice. The Court held that the wage structure prescribed by an award supplants the contractual terms, effectively becoming a contract between the parties.Applicability of Section 15 and Limitation:The appellant contested the application of Section 15 of the Act to the dispute, claiming that the rates fixed by the award did not meet the definition of wages under Section 2(vi). Additionally, the appellant raised a limitation defense. The authority rejected the appellant's contentions, ruling that Section 2(vi) includes wages prescribed by an Industrial Tribunal. The Court agreed with this finding and held that the limitation issue was a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence.Validity of Authority's Decision and High Court's Ruling:The appellant challenged the authority's decision by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court affirmed the authority's finding, stating that the wages fixed by the award fell within the definition of wages under Section 2(vi). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.Legal Position on Wages Prescribed by Award:The Supreme Court referenced the powers of Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, highlighting their authority to alter contractual terms for social justice. The Court cited precedents indicating that terms set by an award constitute a fresh contract between the parties. The Court noted conflicting views from different High Courts but ultimately agreed with the interpretation that wages directed by industrial adjudication are included in the definition of wages under Section 2(vi).In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the authority's decision that the applications under Section 15 were competent. The matter was remanded to the authority for further proceedings, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
