LexBRIDGE & ROOF CO.· (INDIA) LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19~1 .4J1Jak•hs A-fathur Ba.bu' s Sakti Ousha.dhal •Y rJ Due. ( P) Lid • . v. Union of India 978 SOPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] • where these preparations are manufactured, though · it appears that the petitioners in. the present case are mostly from Calcutta and the maimfacture in these case~ must be going on Calcutta. We therefore allow the petitions and direct that these three medicinal preparations should not W•ncllooJ • . - . be taxed under. the various Excise Acts in force in various States and can only be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet. preparations (Excise Duties) Act. \Ve pass no order as. to the .claim for . refund for that is a matter which the ·petitioners can take up with the State 1962 Stpkmbtr JJ. . Governments concerned according to law. ·The petitioners will get their costs from the respon· dents-one set of hearing fee: . · Petitions allowed. BRIDGE & ROOF CO.· (INDIA) LTD. (B. P. ! ' v. UNION.· OF INDIA i'rNHA, C. J., fl. J. IMAM, K. SunnA _RAo, K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SrrAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Emplovees Provident Fund-Bonus-Whether excepted · .. from definition of •Bade Wages'-Contribution-Tl'htlh•r to be paid an bonus-Bonu•, whether drnotes, only Profi! Bonus-- Otntral Goi·ernment Order Validit.11-Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), ss. 2(b), 5, 6, 19A. The petitioner No. I i~ a p_ublic limited compa~~ eng- - aged in a manufacture of cng1necr1ng goods. In add1uon to basic wages and dearness allowance p~yable by pet1 ti oner . No. I it has introduced two Production bonu! ·schemes. Certain difficulties and doubts having arisen on the question- whether production bonus could be taken into cc:>nsi<Jera\iop in calculatin.g the contributi.on under s. 6 of the • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 979 Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, the Central Govern- ment passed an order by which it was directed that the produc· tion bonus payable as part·of a contract of employment either at a flat rate or at a rate linked to the quantum of work turned out satisfied the definition of. "basic wages" under s. 2(b) of the Act. The petitioner No. l was further direct· ed to effect the recovery of provident fund and contribution and to make deposit of arrears of contribution in 'accordance with the first direction contained in the order. Thereupon the present petition was filed under Art. · 32 of the Consti· tution. The main contention of petitioner Ne. l was that 'bonus' without any qualification had been excepted from the terms "basic wages" in the definition in s. 2(b) of the Act and therefore all kinds of bonus were excluded from "Basic wages". Since the section which provides for contribution only refers to basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance no contribution need be paid on bonus. Consequ· ently the order of the Central Government directing th:i.t production bonus should be included in basic wages for the purpose of contribution under the section was invalid. Held, that when the word "bonus" was ~sed without any qualification the legislature had in mind every kind of .l bonus that may be payable to an employee which was preva- lent in the indu$trial field before 1952. It is not possible to accept the contention of the respondent that whatever is the price of labour and arises out of contract is necessar- ily included in the definition of "basic wages" and tht>refore . production bonus which is a kind of incentive wage would also be included, in view of the exc.eption of all kinds of bonus from the definition. Therefore the order of the Central Government, which was presumably under s. l9A of the Act, was incorrect. M/s. Tita.ghur Papei· Mills Oo. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1012, Mfs. hpahani Ltd. Calcutta v. Ispahni Employees Union, [1960] I S.C.R. 24, 'l'he Graham Trading Oo. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1960] l S.C,R. 107 and Millowners Association. v. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, (1960) L.L.J. 1247, referred to. OmGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 62 of 1962. ' Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution 9f Jndj11i for iiqforoement of ¥ri.ndi+J:B.ent11il ~i§llts, . . 19/JB • Bridg~ ch ,Roof. Co. (India) Lti. . ,.. . Union of India 1862 B1id1e "' Ro•f Ce .. (lnJio) Lti, •• Union 1f lndiu 980 SUPJtEMl!J COURT REPORTS [1963] G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. G. Mathur 11.nd Ravinder Nartdn for the petitioners.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.