H.P: STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus RANJEET SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1115 · Decided: 05-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1115 
... 
H.P: STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. 
A 
!-
II. 
RANJEET SINGH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7056-7065 of 2001) 
MARCH 5, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
~ 
' 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
/ 
s. 33-C(2) - Application by daily wagers claiming c 
minimum bonus under Payment of Bonus Act- HELD: In case 
of pre-existing right there must be agreement by both sides 
. about existence of such rights - If there is dis-agreement this 
has to be decided by the competent authority - The question 
of entitlement to bonus could not have been decided by the 
Labour Court - Since High Court has not decided primary D 
+ 
issues of (i) applicability of s.33-C(2), (ii) jurisdiction of Labour 
" 
Court to decide such a matter and (iii) applicability of Bonus 
Act to daily wagers, matter remitted to it for decision afresh. 
The respondent-daily wagers filed applications u/s E 
33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming 
minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. 
The Labour Court as also the High Court held in favour of 
the claimants. Aggrieved, the employer H.P. State 
--< 
Electricity Board filed the instant appeals. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The instant case belongs to claimant's 
right to relief which falls in category (i) as elaborated in 
Central lnland's case* . Further, the High Court seems to 
have lost sight of the fact that the Labour Court under the G 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can decide only the matters 
specified in Second Schedule thereto. "Bonus" appears 
-} 
as Item 5 in the Third Schedule. Therefore, the question 
of entitlement to bonus could not have been decided by 
1115 
H 
1116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
.,.. 
A . the Labour Court. In case of pre-existing rights there must 
~ 
be agreement ,by both sides about existence of such 
rights. If there is dis-agreement this has to be decided by 
the competent authority. The stand that the expression 
'bonus payable' rel~tes to the quantum· and not payability 
B is also not correct. [para 14-15] [1122-E, F, G; 1123-A] 
I 
-1. 
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. The 
Workmen and Anr. AIR 1974 SC 1604 - relied on. 
1.2 The primary issues before the High Court, besides 
c applicability of s.33-C(2) of the_lndustrial Disputes Act, 
1947, were that daily wagers could not get bonus, and 
the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate such a 
matter. Stand of the appellants that Section 2(11) of the 
Bonus Act is applicable only to persons who receive 
D monthly salary, has also not been dealt with. Besides, the 
+-
claim was made for the period from 1977 to 1986, but the 
'( 
application was filed long after in 1991. The High Court 
has not considered these i~sues. The grievance is also 
that in some of the cases there was no claim for any 
E interest, but the Labour Court and the High Court wrongly 
decided the entitlement of interest@ 12%. [para 3,6-8 and 
16] [1117-G, H; 1118-A, B, E, F, G] 
1.3 The matter is remitted to the High Cou~t for 
considering (i) applicability of Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 
t.-
F (ii) the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide the matter; 
and (iii) the applicability of the Bonus Act to daily wagers. 
[para 16] [1123-A, BJ 
U. P State Road Transport Corporation vs. Birendra · 
Bhandari 2006(10) SCC 211; State Bank of India vs. Ram 
G Chandra Dubey & Ors. [2001] 1 SCC 73; and Vijay Kumar 
vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 2007(13) SCALE 379 - referred 
to. 
t ~ 
.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 7056-7065 of 2001. 
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. v. 
1117 
RANJEET SINGH AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
"' 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.12.1998 A 
I-
of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. 
Nos. 4, 5, 6of1992, 541, 542, 545, 546, 547, 548 and 549 of 
1993. 
WITH 
B 
)' 
Civil Appeal Nos. 8490 of 2001, 87 of 2002, 331 of 2002 
•, 
and 2802 of 2007. 
/ 
Naresh K. Sharma, Sanjay Sarin, Manjusha Wadhwa, 
Gagandeep, Ashok Mathur and Y Prabhakara Rao for the c 
Appellants. 
Ashwini Gupta, Gaurav Dhingra and M.C. Dhingra for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
--+ 
D 
' 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These appeals involve an 
identical question and therefore are disposed of by a comm9n 
judgment. 
2. The Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of several 
writ petitions by a common judgment dated 30.12.1998. The 
E 
primary issue was whether a petitio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.