JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J.
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated May 23, 1985 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, the respondent No. 1, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act.
2. The relevant facts, as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties, are that Harinder Mohan Singh, the respondent No. 2, was working as a Cashier in the Charbagh Branch of the State Bank of India at Lucknow and he was discharged from service with effect from May 14, 1973. Aggrieved by the order of discharge; dated May 14, 1973, the respondent No. 2, raised an industrial dispute which led to a Reference under Section 10 of the Act vide order of the Central Government dated March 11, 1977. During the pendency of the Reference before the Industrial Tribunal, a settlement was arrived at on May 29, 1981 which led to an award of the same date in terms of the settlement. According to the petitioner, the amount payable to the respondent No. 2 under the award came to Rs. 1,12,297/41 and the respondent No. 2 was paid an amount of Rs. 68,488/41 after deducting at source the income tax payable on the amount due to the respondent No. 2 under the award which was Rs. 43,809/-. The respondent No. 2 felt dis-satisfied with the payment made to him. He thought that he was also entitled to the payment of bonus, banker's contribution towards the Provident Fund and the gratuity besides certain amount of interest. He, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 through an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. By means of its order dated May 23, 1985, the respondent No. 1 has upheld the claim of the respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition.
3. The court has heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.K. Yog, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, at length and in detail. Sri Sinha contends that the respondent No. 1 has committed an error apparent on the face of record by including the sums of bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity in the computation of wages payable to the respondent No. 2 under the award dated May 29, 1981, in as much as the expression 'wages' cannot be taken to include bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and the gratuity. Further contention of Sri Sinha is that the respondent No. 1 fell into error in directing the payment of interest in respect of the amount deducted by the Bank at source and paid to the Income Tax Department. In answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. A.K. Yog, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that, in fact, the parties to the award dated May 29, 1981 had understood and intended that while computing the wages payable to the respondent No. 2, the bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity would also be included, and that the Bank had wrongly deducted the amount of Income-tax causing loss of interest to the respondent No. 2 and as such the respondent No. 2 was liable to be compensated by the Bank by paying interest.
4. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the terms of the settlement which culminated into the award:
"The parties have arrived at a settlement. Accordingly it has been agreed that the respondent bank would pay total back wages as on to date along with compensation requisite retrenchment apart from 3 month's wages in lieu of notice pay to the workman in satisfaction of his entire claim in this reference. The workman forgoes his right to reinstatement. No other claim would be available to workman after this settlement. Parties would bear costs. An award in terms of this settlement may be made. The payment would be made within 5 months from today."
From the perusal of the terms of the settlement, quoted above, it is abundantly clear that what was intended to be paid to the respondent No. 2 was total back wages besides retrenchment compensation and three month's wages in lieu of notice. The terms clearly stipulated that no other claim would be available to the respondent No. 2. Immediately a question arises as to what should be understood by the expression 'wages'. Answer to this question is to clinch the issue.
5. The expression 'wages' has been defined in Clause (rr) of Section 2 of the Act and the definition contained in the said clause would be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy raised herein in as much as the dispute pertains to and is covered by the Act. Clause (rr) defines wages to mean all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled be payable to a workman in respect of his employment, or of work done in such employment, and including such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to; the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of foodgrains or other articles; any travelling concession; any commission payable on the promotion of sales or business or both but does not include any bonus; any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or for the benefit of the workman under any law for the time being in force; any gratuity payable on the termination of his service. It is thus apparent that bonus and employer's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity payable to the workman on termination of his service are expressly excluded from expression 'wages' and the expression Swages' used in the award has, therefore, to be Understood to mean remuneration payable to the Respondent No. 2, excluding bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity. So far as the contention of Sri Yog that the parties to the award dated May 29, 1981 had understood and intended that while computing the wages payable to the respondent No. 2, the bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity would also be included is concerned, it is to be noticed that neither any pleading to that effect was set up nor any evidence was led before the respondent No. 1 in that regard. Even before this court, no material has been produced to fortify the said submission regarding the intention of the parties to the award for assigning meaning to the expression 'wages' other than the one assigned under the Act. The contention of Sri Yog has thus no footing.
6. Coming to the grievance raised by the respondent No. 2 against the action of deduction of income tax at source by the Bank from the amount payable to the respondent No. 2 under the award, suffice it to say that in doing so the Bank only discharged its statutory obligation under Section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and no umbrage can be taken on that score. In any case, if certain amount has been wrongly realised and paid towards income tax, the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to the refund thereof. Indeed, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and not disputed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, that necessary refund has already been made to the respondent No. 2. Thus no grievance of the respondent No. 2 on this score survives.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order holding the respondent No. 2 to be entitled from the petitioner the sum of Rs. 49,138/- under the award dated May 29, 1981 is erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.
8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated May 29, 1981, a copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the petition, is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.