CHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO. LTD. versus RAMESWAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 08-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

140 
CHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO. LTD. A. 
1·. 
RAMESWAR AND ORS. 
A 11gust 8, 1967 
SHELAT, V. 
BHARGAVA AND C. A. 
VAIDlAL!NGAM, JJ .] 
[J. M. 
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme !let, 1948 (46 of 8 · 
1948)-Bonus under the Scheme-Jurisdiction of Labour Court un· 
der s. 33C of Industrial Disputes .4.ct-Limitation for app[ications-
Eligibility for bonus. 
Industrial Disputes .4.ct, 1947 (14 of 1947) s. 33C Bonus under Coal 
Mius Provident Fund and Bonus Sche1ne A.ct-Jurisdiction of 
Labour Court-Limitation for application. 
The respondents-workml>ll filed applications in 
1962 
claiming C 
bonus under the Scheme framed by the Central Government under 
the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 and 
railway fares and leave wages from 1948 onwards. The Labour 
Couri. Dhanbad aJ!owed their claims under S. 33C(2) of the Indus-
trial Disputes Act. 1947. which, in appeals to this Court, the appel· 
!ant-Company challengeq, contending, that (1) the Labour Court 
had no jurisdiction to try these applhtions under S. 33C(2); (ii) the D 
applications were barred by limctation prescribed by the bonus 
Scheme and/or due to !aches. and (iii) under the said Scheme the 
workmen were not entitled to bonus as they were employed as do-
mastic servants. 
HELD: The appeals must fail. 
(!) The right to the benefit which is sought to be computed 
must be an existing one. that is to say. aiready adjudicated upon or E 
provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the 
relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. 
Since the scope of sub-sec. 2 of s. 33C is wider than that of sub-s 1. 
and the sul>-section is not confined to cases ari~:ng under an award 
settlement or under the prOIVisions of Chapter VA there is no reason 
to hold that a benefit provided by statute or a Scheme made there-
under, without there being anything contrary under such statute or 
s. 33C(2), cannot fall within sub-section 2. Consequently, the benefit F' 
provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines ProvideBt 
Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remained to be computed 
must falJ under sub-section 2 and the Labour Court therefore bad 
ju.r.isdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in re9'-
pect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial 
workman and h;s employer [144B-Dl. 
Punjab National Bank Ldt. v. Kharb.inda [1962] Supp, 2 S.C.R. G 
977 Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan fl964l 3 S . .C.R. 140. and 
Bombay Gas Co., Ltd. v. Gopa! Bhiva f!9641 3 S.C.R. 709 relied en. 
(ii) There is no justification for inducting a period of nm:tation 
provided in the Limitat'on Act into the prov1sions of s. 33C(2) which 
de not lay dO\\'n any limitation. It is a matter of some significance 
t!:at though the legislature amended sectlon 33C by Act 36 of 1964 
and introduced limitation in that Sectfon, it did so bv means of a pro- H 
viso only in respect of claims made under sub-sec. 1 but did not pro-
vide any such limitation for claims under sub-sec. 2. [144H-145B]. 
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709 relid 
on. 
' • 
MIXIXG ENGI'-'EER V. RA,IESWAR (Shela~ J.) 
141 
l 
The period of three years of limitation provided for by clause (3) 
of S. 9A of the Bonus Scheme applies to applications for payment by 
the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner from the deposit made 
in the Government treasury and has no application to claims under 
S. 33C(2) which makes no provision for limttation. fl45D-El. 
(iii) Two conditions are necessazy to render an employee ineligi-
ble for Bonus under S. 1 of the Bonus Scheme: (1) that he is emp. 
B Joyed as a ma!i, a sweeper or a domestic servan~. and (2) that he 
performs during the relevant period domestic or personal work. To 
render an employee ineligible for bonus under this exception both 
the capacity and the nature of work are relevant factors. It follows 
that even though an employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper- or 
a domestic servant if he does non-domestic or non-personal work 
he will be entitled to bonus and WQUid lose his night to it only during 
c 
that period that he does domestic or personal work. fl46B-C]. 
Bhowra Colliery v. Its Workmen, f19621 L.L.J. 378, relied on. 
on· the evidence, the respondents were employed in the colliery, 
they. \Vere not assigned the exclusive duty of supplying v:ater at the 
residence of the junior officers but they supplied water at certain 
pit heads. S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.