WORKMEN OF THE BOMBAY PORT TRUST versus TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 10-10-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 pro-
viso 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 mak-
ing 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 Work-
men were not entitled to payment for Sundays on which no 
work was done and that in any case they had been constructi-
vely 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.