M/S. HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES versus DEPUTY LABOUR COMMR. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. HAMDARD (WAKF) LABO RA TORIES 
A 
v. 
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMR. AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, I 947: 
S.2(y)-Bonus is neither wage nor allowance-Payment of Bonus Act, 
1965-S.2(21). 
c 
S.6-H(l)-Proceedings under-Nature of-Held: Is in the nature of 
executing proceedings-Authority vested with power thereunder cannot 
determine any complicated question of law--Claim for bonus by workmen 
can be made by raising an industrial dispute-It cannot be raised by execution D 
application. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Interpretation clause using the word 'include' vis-a-vis word 'mean 
and include '-Distinguishing features between. 
The appellant-employer terminated the respondent-workers on the 
ground that they had gone on an illegal strike. It gave rise to industrial 
dispute. The Industrial Court gave an award directing the employer to 
reinstate the terminated workers on original post and pay scale and to pay 
E 
)' 
50% of back wages/allowance. The said award attained finality as the writ p 
petition and SLP against it was dismissed. 
The workers filed application under S.6-H(l) ofU.P. Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 claiming back wages and bonus. Additional Labour Commissioner 
held that workers were not entitled to claim bonus. 
J-
The workers filed another application before the Labour Commissioner 
claiming bonus. Labour Commissioner held that workers were entitled to 
bonus, because bonus is deferred wage. Appellant unsuccessfully filed review 
and then writ petition before the High Court. 
873 
G 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
' 
.r 
A 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in view of the definition 
,. 
of'wages' contained ins. 2(y) of the Act ands. 2(21) of the Payment of Bonus 
Act, bonus is neither wages nor allowance; that the Labour Commissioner 
committed a manifest error in directing payment thereof on the spacious plea 
that it is deferred wages and that in order to interpret a judgment, the terms 
B 
used therein, in the event of any ambiguity, must be interpreted in the light of 
the statute operating in the field. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
) 
HELD: I. Different statutes, enacted by the Parliament from time to 
c time, although beneficial in character to the workmen, seek to achieve 
different purposes. Different authorities have been prescribed for enforcing 
the provisions of the respective statutes. The authority under the Payment 
Wages Act is one of them. In view of the fact that diverse authorities exercise 
jurisdiction which may be overlapping to some extent, the courts while 
interpreting the provisions of the statutes must interpret them in such a 
D manner so as to give effect thereto. (Paras 16 and 17) (883-F; 884-AJ 
Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Adyal v. Presiding Officer, Seco1;1d 
»+ 
Labour Court, Nagpur and Ors., AIR (1986) Born 340, referred to. 
E 
2. S.6-H(I) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for a 
proceeding which is in the nature of an execution proceedings. The said 
provision can be invoked in the event any money is due to a workman under 
an award. They cannot be invoked in a case where ordinarily an industrial 
dispute can be raised and can be referred to for adjudication by the appropriate 
government to an industrial court. The authorities to determine a matter 
F arising under s.6-H(I) of the Act and an industrial dispute raised by the 
'{ 
workmen are different. The authority vested with the power thereunder cannot 
determine any complicated question of law. It cannot determine dispute in 
regard to existence of a legal right. It cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the 
State Government under s.11-B of the Act. (Para 18) (876-A, B, CJ 
G 
Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand & Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, 
.{' 
Grains Kirana Merchants Worker's Union & Anr., [1969) 1 SCR 366, held 
inapplicable. 
3.1. A Labour Commissioner is not a judicial authority. In view of s.11-
H B of the Act, it is for the State Government to construe an award, in the event 
HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES v. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMR. 
875 
any dispute arises in giving effect thereto. The Labour court in its award A 
directed reinstatement of 17 workmen on the original post and pay scale. No 
increment was granted; no continuity of service was directed. What was 
directed was payment of 50% of the back wages/allowance while considering 
the question of backwages. [Paras 19 and 20) [884

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