ORDER Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. This is a petition by the Hindustan Steel Ltd. against an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-citm-Labour Court, Jabalpur, directing that the management was not justified in charging rent for the accommodation provided by the management. The award is as follows:- The management will not be justified to charge rent from the occupants of the hutments in question until they have been made of standard types comparable with such for which rent is charged. In any case without improving these quarters and providing necessary public amenities of light, water and conservancy no rent will be chargeable. The Union will be entitled to Rs.100 as costs of proceedings from the management. The question referred to the Tribunal was: Whether the action of the management in charging rent from the employees of the Nandini Mines in respect of 70 quarters which have been renovated is justified and legal? If not, to what relief are these workmen entitled ? It will be seen at a glance that the bulk of the order passed by the Tribunal is outside the question referred. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine what was to happen in future and under what conditions only the management would be entitled to charge any rent. It will also be noted that all that has been decided, which is relevant to the question referred, is that the management is not justified in charging any rent from the occupants of the hutments in question. This decision has been arrived at on two grounds: (1) that when the occupants occupied these quarters or hutments, they were not specifically told that they would have to pay a particular rent and (2) that the condition of these hutments was not such as would entitle the management to charge the rent which it has charged. So far as the liability to pay rent is concerned, Annexure A-1 dated 2nd September 1963 and Annexure A-2 dated 23rd September 1963 clearly indicate that the rent was contemplated to be charged for these quarters when they were alloted. It must have, therefore, been known to the workers that whoever is allotted these quarters will have to pay rent when it is assessed. Ultimately, a committee was appointed to assess the fair rent for these quarters. It must have, therefore, been known to the workers that whoever is allotted these quarters will have to pay rent when it is assessed. Ultimately, a committee was appointed to assess the fair rent for these quarters. This committee gave its report and determined that in view of the temporary nature of these quarters, instead of charging 71/2 per cent. rent in future should be charged at 5 per cent and for the past period up to 31st December 1965 rent would be only Rs. 3 per mensem. After this report, deduction of rent from the pay of the workers was started. An objection was raised to this deduction of rent. The representations were disallowed by the General Manager and it was clearly stated that if these few 70 workers, who were allotted these quarters, were not charged any rent, then it would be unfair to those who were not being allotted any quarters. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has given the award as mentioned above. After looking into the matter and hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, we are of opinion that simply because the order of allotment dated 11th September 1964 did not specifically mention that the allottees will have to pay a particular rent, it does not lead to the conclusion that they were allotted these quarters free of rent. It is obvious otherwise also, for the allotment was made only to a few of the workers and, therefore, the allotment of these quarters cannot be said to have become a part of the terms of their employment so that they became entitled to continue in possession of the quarter without any payment. Workers of the same class, who were not allotted any quarters, were also governed by the same terms of employment and in the absence of the quarters having been allotted to them, it cannot be said that the terms of employment were not fulfilled with regard to them. It is obvious that these quarters were allotted as an extra facilitiy to these workers for which they were liable to pay rent. The observations of the Tribunal regarding the condition of these quarters are wholly uncalled for. It was not referred to the Tribunal to see what was the fair rent for the quarters which were allotted. It is obvious that these quarters were allotted as an extra facilitiy to these workers for which they were liable to pay rent. The observations of the Tribunal regarding the condition of these quarters are wholly uncalled for. It was not referred to the Tribunal to see what was the fair rent for the quarters which were allotted. The observation of the Tribunal that they were not of the standard type is also too vague. There being no standard type prescribed anywhere, it is impossible to say what would be the particular standard type of quarters for a labourer. The supply of electricity and water facilities in places where mines are being worked is an impossible demand. A water-works cannot be set up for the purpose of these quarters. We are, therefore, of opinion that the award given by the Tribunal is based upon entirely extrinsic considerations. Under the payment of Wages Act, value of house-accommodation is not a part of the "wages" as defined in Section 2(vi) and under Section 7(2)(d) rent for house-accommodation is a permissible deduction. There is, therefore, no illegality in making this deduction of rent from the wages. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The award of the Tribunal dated 22nd July 1968 is quashed. Parties will bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner.