LexBALDYANATH AYURVEDA BHAWAN MAZDOOR UNION, PATNA versus MANAGEMENT OF SHRI BAIDYANATH AYURVEDA BHAWAN PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
_.,d
::~1
=;
~
~
I -· I ,
•
;
ii1
j
~
=1
iii
'"\( ,.
1
"'1
'\.
"' ..
-(_
~
#
)
•.
BAlDYANAtH AYURVEDA BHAWAJ'l
MAZDOOR UNION, PATNA
v.
MANAGEMENT OF SHRI BAIDYANATH
AYURVEDA BHAWAN PVT. LTD. & ORS.
· November 24, 1983
[D.A. DESAI, R.B. MISRA, AND RAN,GANATH MISRA, JJ.]
•
Paymtnt of Bonu< Act 1965
927
Act whether exhaustive on the law relating to bo11us-•Aitendance bonus'
being paid prior to Apt-Employees whether entitled to 'attendance bonus' over ·
and abo'1'2 profit bonus payable under the-Act.
A
B
c
The 'workmen wOrking in the establislurtcnt of the first respondenl were
·being paid- 'attendance bonus'. The question \VhcilH'r the \VOrkmen were
entitled to payment of boilus under the Pay1nent of Bol1us Act, 1965, over
and 8.bove the 'att~nda~ce bortlls' was referred to adjudication under Section 10
of the I~dustrial ri!sputes Act 1947.
The Tribunal held i~ favour of the
workmen. Before the High Court the en~ploycr coritended that when . bonus
was being paid under the Act· the workrnen were not entitled to separate
'attendance bonus'. . The High Court, relying on
th~ decision of this Court.
in·_~angki Jeeva;aj Ghewar Chand & Or.~. v. Secretary, MiJdras Chillies, Gtains
E
Kirana Mer,nh.ants Workers' Union & Anr: (1969) 1 S.C.R. -366 held that the
wOrkmen we"re npt entitled to payment of 'attendance bonus'.
Allowing the appeal,
'HELD : I. Both the Tnbunal and the High Coµrt aoncurrently lie Id·
that the workineh in t11e establiShment had been receiving 'attendance bonus'
.
-
.. _
.
, from before. 'Attendance bonus' being outsi~e the purview of the Bonus Ac_t,
the High··court was not right in vacating the award of the Tribunal.
[928 E-F, 931 AJ
~. ln G/Jewar Chand•s case on which the High Court relied, the question
was not whether after the Bonus Act can1e into force; the other types of .bonus
hitherto paid caused to be payable. This question was directly considered· in
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v M/s Abdulblzai Faizullab!zai & Ors. (1976)
3 SOR 591 and held that the Act leaves untouched-customary ·bonus ..
.
, •
[929 A-B, 930 HJ
3~ In the illstant case, if.the employer had not chalienged the award the
workn1Cn would have had the benefit of the bonus n1ore than a decilde b.1ck.
T_hiit justifi'es the awarding of interest at 9% per annum. (931 B·CJ
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
·F
G
B
•
928
. .
. .
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
.(i984) i s.c.il:
CIVIL APPELL, TB JURISOICTION : ·civil. Appeal No. 1851· of
,.1974.
Appeal by: pecial Leave.from·the Judgment and Order dated
the 24th October, 1973 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 613
·ofl970,
·
R.K. Garg and V.J. FrMcts for the Appellent. -
.L.C. Goya/ for the Respondents.·
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGA.NA TH M1SRA, J. This appeal by special leave . is directed
against the decision of the Patna f;Iigh Court quashing an award of
the Industrial Tribunal of Bihar in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article· 227 of the Constitution and the workmen's union has carried ·
the appeal.
·
Two disputes were referred to adjudicatio~ under section 10 of
(he Industrial Disputes Act but the.appeal is confined to only one,
viz., "whether the workmen are entitled.to payment of bonus for the.
year 1966-67 under the Payment of Bonus Act. over and above the
'attendance bonus' which is being paid in this establishment? If· so»
. what should be the quantum of bonus 1". The Tribunal found that
the workmen were entitled to attendance bonus over and above the
bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ('Act for
short), and specified the amount as required under the reference.
•'.The employer challenged the Award . before the High Court and
contended that no separate attendance l:>onu.s 1vas payable when
··bonus 1vas ·being paid under. the Act.
A Division Bench of the-
.: High Court came to hold, concurring with the Tribunat;t~at the·
workmen in the e<tablisbmenf had been receiving attendance bonus
. from before and proceeded to examin.e w.bether such attendance
bonus was included in. the bonus payable to the workmen under the
Act or could be claimed over and above the. statutory bonus. Relying
·.on the observations of this Court in Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar C~and
·.&. o;s. v .. Secretary, Madr(ls Chillies., Grains Kirana Merchants
Worker's Union.& Anr.('), the Con.rt 9ame to the conclusion that the
wo,kmen were not entitled to payment of attendance bonus for the
yearExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.