SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby their petitions challenging the provisions of West Pakistan Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers (Amendment) Act, 1993, promulgated on 10-4-1993, by which the rate of minimum wages was revised and made effective from 1-7-1992, was dismissed.
2. The West Pakistan Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) had fixed the minimum wages of unskilled workers at Rs.140 p.m. Which has been revised by the Amending Act, 1993 and instead of Rs.140 Rs 1,500 have been provided retrospectively from 1-7- 1992. The learned counsel contended that the word `wage' has a defined meaning in the Jurisprudence and by making the increased wage payable retrospectively liability against the petitioners has been created, which is arbitrary and in violation of law and fundamental rights, particularly Articles 4, 8, 12, 18, 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution. During arguments the main emphasis of the learned counsel was that by giving retrospective effect, liability has been created in respect of an amount which was neither due nor payable at the time when work was performed and thus the fundamental rights are violated. By the Amending Act two steps have been taken which adversely affect the petitioners; (1) raising the minimum wages from Rs. 140 per month to Rs.1,500 per month and (2) making the Amending Act applicable with retrospective effect from 1-7- 1992. It seems that the minimum wages of unskilled workers was fixed by the Ordinance in the year 1969 whereafter there does not seem to have been any revision although in all labour legislations the wages and other emoluments have been increased to the benefit of the workers. The revision was made in the year 1993 i.e. After more I than two decades during which salaries and minimum wages of workers and employees had been increased several times. Therefore, mere increase in the rate of wages cannot in the circumstances of the case, be treated as violation of any law or any fundamental right, which the petitioners may possess. Article 4 provides that every citizen has a right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law which is an inalienable right. In particular no action detrimental to life, liberty or property can be taken except in accordance with law. In order to bring the case under Article 4 the petitioners must satisfy that the increase in the minimum wages was not in accordance with law. Considering this aspect of the case the petitioners placed reliance on Article 12 which does not apply to the present case as imposition of any rate or fixing wages with retrospective effect will not amount to infecting a party with retrospective punishment nor prima facie the freedom of trade as contemplated by Article 18 is infringed. The right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property is also not infringed because the petitioners have to pay higher wages retrospectively for work performed by the unskilled workers.
3. The literal meaning of `wage' is the remuneration payable to a worker. It also includes other benefits provided it is so agreed or payable as wages under the law. Under various legislative enactments term 'wage' has been given wide meaning by including m it allowances of various nature, bonus house rent and cost of living allowance.
4. The learned counsel has referred to the meanings of the word `wages' given by various law dictionaries, which are reproduced as follows:-- Stroud's Judicial Dictionary: "`Wages': Though this word might be said to include payment for any services, yet, in general, the word `salary' is used for payment of services of a higher class, and `wages' is confined to the earnings of labourers and artisans."
Wharton's Law Lexicon: "Wages: the compensation agreed upon by a master to be paid to a servant, or any other person hired to do work or business for him."
Black's Law Dictionary "Wages: A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services; the compensation agreed upon by a master to be paid to a servant, or any other person hired to do work or business for him ....... Every form of remuneration payable for a given period to an individual for personal services, including salaries, commissions, vacation pay, dismissal wages, bonuses and reasonable value of board, rent, housing, lodging, payments in kind, tips, and any other similar advantage received from the individual's employer or directly with respect to work for him."
Ballentine's Law Dictionary "Wages: Compensation for manual labour, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times, and measured by the day, week, month, or season. Sums paid as hire or reward to domestic or menial servants, artisans, mechanics, labourers, and other employees of like class, as distinguished from the compensation of clerks, officers of corporations, and public officers."
K.J. Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary: "Wages means remuneration, which an employer is liable to pay if the term of the contract of employment are fulfilled ---..Any wage fixed by the award of a tribunal or by a conciliation proceeding must necessarily mean the wages which, though not expressly agreed upon between the parties, must be taken to have been impliedly agreed upon between the parties The minimum wages fixed by the award or in conciliation proceedings are well within the definition of 'wage' given in the Act."
By referring to these definitions the learned counsel has contended that the increase given to the workers by the impugned Act cannot be termed as wages, but it is a bounty and it is not within the discretion of the respondents to award such bounty to the workers or anyone else. The Word 'wage' has different meanings as given to it by the special legislations. Each labour legislation dealing with the wages of all categories of workers of persons has given its own meaning. In the said Act before amendment, 'wage' was defined as follows:-- " `Wages' means all cash remuneration payable to a workman, and includes dearness allowance, house rent, conveyance allowance, and any other fixed allowance, but does not include travelling allowance, gratuity or bonus."
Now after amendment the definition has been changed as follows:- " `Wages' means all cash remuneration payable to a workman, and includes dearness allowance, house rent, conveyance allowance, cost of living allowance, special allowances and any other fixed allowance, but does not include travelling allowance, gratuity or bonus."
It is thus clear that the legislature intended to give more benefits 'to the unskilled workers and for that reason even the meaning and scope of the word "wages" have been extended.
5. The contention that the increase in wages or burdening the petitioners to pay with retrospective effect is bestowing a bounty is not correct. The learned counsel has referred to the meaning of the word `bounty', which has been defined as "a gratuity or an unusual or additional benefit conferred upon or compensation paid to a class of persons" (Black's Law Dictionary), "a gift or favour bestowed as expression of liberality or kindness, money paid or a premium offered to encourage or promote an object, an amount offered for services performed or to be performed." (Ballentine's Law Dictionary and Mokal's Law Terms and Phrases Judicially interpreted). The word `bounty' has thus varied meaning according to the circumstances or as defined under the legislation. It may be a premium, a favour or a liberal increase to persons working or for the work performed or as an incentive for better results and creating good working conditions. When any person in his personal capacity makes such favourable concession, it becomes a gift, kindness or liberality, but when it is given by a legislation, it is based on certain valid considerations and acquires legality conferring a legal right on the person to whom it is to be paid and a liability and duty of the person who is required to pay. The justification in the present case seems to be reasonable as for more than two decades the; minimum wages of unskilled workers had remained static at Rs. 140 p.m which as compared to other workers was even much lower than the base line. T he retrospective operation can be given by the legislature and merely because a particular party is burdened with certain liability in consequence of the operation of law, does not mean that any of his rights has been illegally infringed. The learned counsel has referred to M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, etc. v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (AIR 1980 SC 1992) where it was observed that "where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will. There are two limitations imposed by law which structure and control the discretion of the Government in this behalf. The first is in regard to the terms on which largess is granted and the other is in regard to persons who may be recipients of such largess." There can be no cavil with the above proposition as in the present case firstly, the benefit conferred on the unskilled workers is not a largess, and secondly the Government by legislation has fixed the criteria for the persons to whom the benefit is to be given, its extent and also the time from which it is to be conferred. In the circumstances, there is no room for interference. We, therefore, find no force in the petition and refuse to grant leave.