EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE BHOWRA COLLIERY versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 30-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
883 
intention was to benefit the assessee Company by 
the acquisition of a large blook of shares at a very 
much larger price than obtaining in the m'l.rket, to 
acquire certain agencies of a profitable character. 
In our opinion, this transaction must be regarded 
as one on the capital side. Shares were never 
treated as part of the stock-in-trade. Tb.ey were 
not sold in the market, but were sold at a loss to 
another Company belonging to the same group, 
with the obviouR intention of setting off the losses 
against the profits, thus cancelling the profits, and 
saving them from taxation. 
In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs 
on the respondent. 
Appeal all(JWed. 
EMPLOYERS IN RELATCON TO THE 
BHOWRA COLLIERY 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Indualrial Di1pute-Bonua-Mali1 Working in 
~fficers 
bungalowa_:Whether entiUe~Ooal Mines Provident Fund and 
Bonus 8cheme1 Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) •· 5. 
In exercise of the power conferred by s. 5 of the Coal 
Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, the 
Central Government frame.d a Bonus Scheme for the payment 
of bonus to employees of coal mines. Paragraph 3 of the 
scheme made every employee in a coal mine eligible for a 
bonus except, inl<ir alia, "a mali on domestic and persorn~I 
work". The question for consideration was whether under 
thi< paragraph the malis workin' in the officers' bungalows 
had any right to bonus 
Held, that these malis were not entitled to any bonus 
under tho Bon·tS Scheme. Paragraph 3 contemplated malis 
who were emplovces of thf'.: colliery owners and were yet on 
domestic work. 
D1.nestic meant as of the home. The malis 
1962 
The CommiasiontJ of 
lncome~,ax, Dflhi 
and RajaJthan 
v . 
.1.\1 f°J. Na 1io'lal 
Finance Ltd. 
H 1d1J1alullah J. 
1968 
Jc..,,,,,y30. 
IfU 
Bllf1'/o)wrs ;,, 
8'1alio• lo u.. 
B/Mulr• OollU.,. 
•• 
n,;, ".,,,_ 
s...,J,. 
884 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
who were working in the bungalows occupied by the officers 
were workinit in the homes of the officers. They were there! 
fore, on domestic work. The work they were doing did not 
cease to be domestic work because the bungalows belonged 
not to the offici:n but to the appellant or because they were 
under the control and orders of the appellant. Further, these 
malis were on personal work. The word "personal" was 
tu.d in the sense of work for an individual as distinguished 
from work for the coal mine as an institution. These malis 
were undoubtedly working for the officers as individuals. 
CIVIL Al>PELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 96 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the a.ward dated 
December 7, 1959, of the Central Governm~nt 
Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad in reference No. 42 of 
1959. 
S. 0. Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the 
appellant. 
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent. 
1962. January 30. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SARKAR, J.-The appellants, the Bhowra Kan-
kanee Coal Co. Ltd., own the Bhowra and other 
collieries. 
On the Bhowra Colliery there are a. 
num her of residential bungalows belonging to the 
appellants oocupied by their officers employed in 
the colliery. The appellants employ certain malis 
for working as such in these bungalows and their 
duty is to look aft.Ar and maintain the gardens there. 
A dispute a.rose between the a.ppella.nts and their 
workmen as to whether these malis, who were four-
teen in number, were entitled to bonus. By an 
order made on June 23, 1959, under the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India refer-
red this dilpute a.long with another with which we 
a.re not concerned in thil case, for adjudication to the 
Industrial Tribunal, Dhanba.d. The Points referred 
concerning the di~ute abovementioned were in 
these terms : 
(1) Whether the withdrawal of the bene-
fit of bonus provided in the Coal Minee Bonus 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
885 
Scheme by the management of the Bhowra 
Colliery from the following garden mazdoors/ 
malis is justified. 
If not, to what relief are 
they entitled and from what date? 
(2) Whether the garden maztloors/malis 
referred to above are employed on domestic 
and personal work within the meaning of 
paragraph 3 (b) of the Coal Mines Bonus 
Scheme, 1948 and if not, to what relief are 
they entitled and from what date? 
The points so referred were decided by the Tribunal 
against the appellants by an award made on 
December 7, 1959, and th

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