LexBALA SUBRAHMANYA RAJARAM versus B.C. PATIL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1958 Virsa Singh v. The Stale of Punjab Bose J. 1958 March 19. 1504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] one' of .fact; and whether the conclusion should be one way or .the ~the~ is a matter of pr~of, where necessary, by ca,lling Ih aid all reasonable mferences of fact in the absence of direct testimony. It is not one for guess-work and fanciful conjecture. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. BALA SUBRAHMANYA RAJARAM v. B.C. PATIL AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, SUBBA RAo and VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) Wages-If include bonus awarded by Industrial Court-Pay- ment of Wages Act (/J1of1936), s. 2(vi), JJ. The Industrial Court, Bombay, awarded bonus equal to 4! months' wages to the operatives of the Tata Mills Ltd. and direct- ed that those operatives who were no longer in the service of the Mills should be paid the bonus in one lump sum by a fixed date and in such cases claims in writing should be made to the Manager of the Mills. The operatives who made a claim before the date fixed were duly paid but payment was r.efused to operatives who applied after that date. The operatives who had been refused payment made applications to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Mills contended that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, but the contention was rejected. The Mills filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by a Single Judge and an appeal against that decision was also dismissed by a Division Bench: Held, that the bonus awarded by the Industrial Court was not wages within the meaning of s. 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act and as such the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application made to it under s. 15 of the Act. Though such ·bonus was remuneration it was not remuneration payable on the fulfilment of the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, as required by s. 2 (vi). F. W. Heilgers cl Co. v. N. C. ChalSJ·avarthi, [1949] F.C.R 356, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 35 & 36 of 1954. • .... ' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1505 Appeals from the judgments and order dated August . 28, 1952, of the Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos. 34 and 35 of 1952,. arising out of the orders dated January 24, 1952, of the said High Court exercising its Civil Original Jurisdiction in. Misc. Applications Nos. 302 of 1951 and 303, 304 and 305 of 1951 respectively. R. J. Kolah, B. · Narayanaswami, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant. H. N. Sanyal, Addi. Solicitor-General of India, N. P. Nathwani and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 3 in C. A 35 & No. 5 in C. A. 36. D. H. Buch and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2 in C. A. 35 & Nos. 2-4 in C. A. 36. 1958. March 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.-These appeals arise out of petitions made ta the Bombay High Court under Art. 226 for writs of certiorari. The. appellant is the Mana$er of the Tata Mills Limited, which carries on busmess in the manufacture and sale of textile. goods in Bombay and as such is responsible for the payment of wages under the Pay- ment of Wages Act, 1936. The first respondent was the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at the times material to these appeals. The sixth respondent' is the present Autho- rity. The Authority is entrusted with the duty of deciding cases falling within the purview of the Act. The second, third, fourth and fifth respondents are employees in the Mills. A dispute arose about a claim made by the opera- tives of the Mills for a bonus for the year 1948. This was referred to the Industrial Court at Bombay which made an award on April 23, 1949, and awarded a bonus equivalent to four and a half months' wages subject to certain conditions of which only the sixth is material here. It runs as follows : "Persons who are eligible for bonus but who are 1958 Bala Subrah- manya Ra}arom ,,, B. C. Patil and Others Bose J. 19S8 Bala Subrah~ manya Rajaram "· B. C. Patil andOtherJ BoseJ. 1506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] not in the service of the Mill on the date of the payment shall be paid in one lump sum by the 30th November, 1949. In such cases, claims in writing should be made to the Manager of the Mill con- cerned." Those operatives who made a claim before the date fixed above were duly paid but payment was refused to the third respondent, who applied much later, on the ground that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.