LexM/S. BURN & CO. LTD. & OTHERS versus THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 423 were all decisions of the same Court, and arose in different circumstances. In two of them, the question was wide enough to take in a fine of reasoning not. adopted by the Tribunal, and in the third, the ques- tion was widened by deleting a reference to a section, when another section was also material. They were not cases where the issues of law as decided by the Tribunal and the High Court were entirely different, which is the case here. The Punjab High Court has taken a contrary view in Mash Trading Co. v. Com- missioner of Income-tax (1 ). For the reasons given above, we are of opinion that theHigh Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going outside the point of law decided by the Tribunal and deciding a different point of law. The order of the High Court will, therefore, be set aside, and the case -will be remitted to the High Court to decide the question framed by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that both the assessee and the Commissioner pointed out the anomaly to the : High Court and the question was reframed in spite of this, the costs of this appeal shall be costs in the reference to be heard by the High Court, and will abide the result. Appeal allowed. Case remitted. M/S. BURN & CO. LTD. & OTHERS v. THEIR EMPLOYEES. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. W ANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Incentive bonus-Scheme-E~clusion of clerical and subordinate staff-Propriety-Power· of Industrial Tribunal. There can be no doubt from the point of view of Economics that the clerical and subordinate staff of an industry like its' manual workers contribute to its production and there can, therefore, be no reason for exciuding them wholly from the bene- fits of a scheme of incentive bonus. The fact that the clerical staff are paid dearness allowance at a higher scale can be no reason for their exclusion. ' (1) [1956] 30 I.T.R. 388. Kusumben. .D. Mahadevia · v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay H idayatullah J. r960 March30. •, 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] r960 Where, as in the instant case, the company had already introduced a scheme of incentive bonus for the inajority of its Burn & Co. Ltd. workmen, there could be no reason why the Industrial Tribunal "· should ·not be able to extend that scheme to the clerical and Their Employees subordinate staff. M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1959] Supp. z S.C.R. rorz, considered. CIVIL APPELLATE JumsmoTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 195 and 196 of 1959. Appeals by special leave from the Award dated April 15, 1957, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-7 of 1956. B. Sen, P. K. Ghakravarty and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and respondents (in C. A. No. 196 of 59). N. G. Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and B. P. Mahesh- wari, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and appellants (in C. A. No. 196 of 59). • 1960. March 30. Tho Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo ]. WANCHOO, J.-These are two appeals by special leave against the same award of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and shall be disposed of by this judgment. Appeal No. 195 is by Messrs. Burn and Co. Limited (hereinafter called the company) and Appeal ·No. 196 is by t.he workmen of Messrs. Burn and Co. Limited (hereinafter called the workmen). There were disputes between the company and the workmen on various matters, which were referred to the tribunal for adjudication. Of these disputes, only two now survive in the two appeals. The company's appeal is with respect to that part of the award which deals with incentive bonus to the clerical and subor- dinate staff while the workmen's appeal is with respect to that part of the award which deals with the ca8h benefit of Annas eight per head per working day for the period the canteen was not in operation. We shall first take up the company's appeal. The company has introduced incentive bonus for manual workers including Sarkars and Checkers but there is no provision for inceJ!tive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff. The workmen therefore claimed that these two categories should also be given incel)- tive bonus like the manual workers and pointed out ' A ' • • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 425 that in other concerns this was done. The company z96o resisted the claim on two grounds: (i) that the clerical Burn & Co. Ltd. staf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.