HUKUM CHAND JUTE MILLS LTD. versus SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 11-04-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
644 
HUKUM CHAND JUTE MILLS LTD. 
v. 
SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
April 11, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, V. D. TuLZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Payment of BonuJ A.ct, 1965-Customary and contractual bonus-If excluded 
by the Act>-A.mending A.ct 23 of 1976-Efject of. 
The appellant mills had been paying customary bonus to its employees for 
a number of years. 
Consequent to the amendment of the Bonus Act, 1965 
in 1976 by Act 23 of 1976 the moo.agement denied the customary bonus claimed 
by the workmen, whereupon the dispute regarding "customary bonus for the 
year 1976" was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. 
The Management's plea that customary bonus was no longer payable, in view 
of tho provisions of the 1976 Amendment, WM negatived by the Tribunal. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
D 
that the Bonus Act as amended by Act 23 of 1976, annihilate! all epecies of 
bonu! including customary and contractual bonu?i. 
E 
Dismissing. the appeal, 
HEID: 1. The Bonus Act (1965) though a complete code was confined 
to profit-oriented bonw only. 
The other kinds of bonu! that have flourished 
in Indian industrial law have been left uncovered by the 
Bonus Act. 
The 
legislative universe spanned by the said statute cannot therefore, affect the rights 
and obligations belonging to a different world or claims and conditions. [647-E] 
2. The amending Act, 23 of 1976 amended the long title of the Bonuo 
Act to provide for the payment of bonus 
11on the bMi! of profits Ol" on tbs 
basis of production or productivity, and for maA.te~ connected therewith." The 
inference that flows therefrom i! that customary or contractual bonus goes 
F 
beyond the pale of the amending Act which modifi°' the previous one by 
bringing within its range bonu?i on the basis of production or produttivity 
also. 
!648G-649B]. 
G 
H 
3. Section 17 of the Bonus Act in express terw rerfers to puja bonus ~nd 
other customary bonus as available for deduction from thC: bonus payable under 
the Act, thus making a clear distinction between the bonus payable under the Act 
and "puja bonus or other customary bonus". This section has been left intact. 
So long as this section remains without amendment the inference is clear that 
the categories covered by the Act, as amended, do not deal with cuaton1ary 
bonm. (649-C] 
-4. Section 31A relates to bonus linked with production or productivity in 
lieu of bonus based on profits. It speaks nothing of the other kindlil of bonus. 
[649-GJ 
5. The Bonus Act (1965) doe. not deal with cu•tomary bonus and i1 confiaed 
to profit-based or productivity~based bonm. The provi?iion! of the Act have 
no say, on customary bonus and cannot, therefore, be inconsistent therewith. 
• 
)!'. .. 
J 
• 
• 
HUKAM CHAND JUTE MILLS V. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 
6 4 5 
(Krishna Iyer, I.) 
Conceptually, statutory bonus and customary bonus operate in two fields arid 
do not cash with each other. [649H-650AJ 
In the instant case, both parties have agreed that throughout they have been 
dealing with customary bonus only and whenever there has been a settlement 
or agreement it has been not the source of the right but the quantification 
thereof. The claim was rooted in custom but quantified by contract. 
It did 
not originate in any agreement, but was organised by it. 
The customary bonus 
as claimed is neither impaired nor eliminated by the 1976 Amendment Act. 
[650 C, Bl 
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. M/S. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Or.. 
[1976] 3 SCR 591 at 608-609 & 612; Sanghi Jeevarai Gh'e'war Chand & Ors. v. 
Secr~tary Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana Merchants Workers' Union and Anr. 
[1969] I SCR 366; referred to. 
CIYIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1118 of 1978. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated 12-5-1978 of the 
Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-169 /77 
G.O. No. 3000 IR dated 26-7-77. 
A 
B 
c 
G. B. Pai, R. C. Shah, S. R. Agarwal, 0. P. Khaitan and Praveen 
D 
Kumar for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, D. T. Sen Gupta, S. R. Gupta and P. K. 
Chakravorti for Respondent No. 3. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, and Ramesh C. Pathak for the Intervener (The 
Bank of Tokyo Staff Association). 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Industrial jurisprudence, based on the values 
of social justice which is integral to our Constitution, bas been built 
around se¥~ral legislations enacted by Parliament, o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.