IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5944 of 1986 Date of Decision:- 05.02.2009 Daya Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Dr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7, 9 and 10. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 31.3.1986 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 31.3.1986 (Annexure P-2) as well as the order dated 21.8.1984 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 1936 Act) on the ground that agricultural workers are not covered under the 1936 Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Section 1 clause (4) of the 1936 Act, this Act applies to persons employed in any factory, to persons employed (otherwise than in a factory) upon any railway by a railway administration or either directly or through a sub contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration and to persons C.W.P.No.5944 of 1986 -2- employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of Section 2. He further contends that as per Section 2, none of the provisions as contained therein would apply to the present case. He further contends that none of the areas which would cover “other establishment” as provided under Section 2 (ii) of the Act would cover agriculture and, therefore, the provisions of the 1936 Act would not apply to agricultural workers, as according to the claim of the respondents they had claimed that they had been assigned the work of agricultural labourers and in return wages in the shape of 1/4th of the crops sown was to be given and on calculating the amount which they would be entitled to, they claimed Rs.22661/- and Rs.35428.75 P, which was allowed. He contends that since the 1936 Act is not applicable to the agricultural labour, therefore, the claim which has been granted in favour of the workmen cannot be sustained. Counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7, 9 and 10 contends that Section 2 (ii) is covered by sub-clause (e) and (g) wherein it is mentioned that the establishment in which work relating to irrigation or the supply of water would cover agriculture and, therefore, the workman would be entitled to the benefit under the 1936 Act. I have gone through the records of the case and have heard the counsel for the parties. The factual aspect is not in dispute. The contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted as none of the provisions which have been mentioned under Section 2(ii) of the 1936 Act would cover the claim of the respondent. The submission of the counsel for the respondent that it would be covered under Section 2(ii) (e) and (g) cannot be accepted for the simple reason as clause 2 sub-clause C.W.P.No.5944 of 1986 -3- (iii) clearly shows what “plantation” would have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (f) of Section 2 of Plantations Labour Act, 1951. This would thus not cover Agriculture. As far as clause (g) is concerned, it relates to supply of water and irrigation although it would be an integral part of agriculture but nevertheless that was not the primary function of agricultural labourers which would therefore, not fall within the provisions of the 1936 Act. In view of the above, as the claim of the respondents does not fall within the purview of the 1936 Act, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The present writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 31.3.1986 (Annexure P-1), 31.3.1986 (Annexure P-2) and 21.8.1984 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Appellate Authority under the 1936 Act are hereby set aside. February 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No