LexMANAGEMENT OF BOMBAY CO. LTD. versus WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
7S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 477 MANAGEMENT OF BOMBAY CO. LTD. v. WORKMEN [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Christmas bonus-Implied agree- ment-Test. An industrial dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen as to payment of bonus for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the tri- bunal. The respondents claimed bonus on the basis that pay- ment of some bonus at Christmas had become an implied con<li- tion of service between the appellant and its workmen. The workmen claimed H months' wages for each year on the basis of an implied term of service. On these facts the tribunal held on the basis of the decision of this Court in MI s. Ispahani Ltd. v. Ispahani Employees Union that payment of bouns at' the rate of 1l: months' salary as an implied condition of ser- vice had been established. It is this award of the tribunal which has been challenged before this Court. Held: (i) Where the payment of bonus is connected with a festival it is possible to infor that there is an implied condi- tion to pay something at the time of the festival. even though the payment has not been made at a uniform rate in previous years. In the present case, the payment has not been uniform over the years and before an implied term of service to pay bonus can be inferred it must be shown that the payment was connected with some festival. Therefore the tribunal was not right in holding that there could be an implied condition of service as to payment of bonus unconnected with any festival. In the present case, though the amount paid in December was originally called an advance, at least one month's salary out of the so-called advance always r·emairned with the work- men and was treated as bonus connected with Chi:istmas festival. On the facts of this case it was held that there was an implied condition of service between the appellant and its workmen that something would be paid every year about Christmas time as festival bonus. MI s. Ispahani Ltd. v. Ispahani Employees' Union, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 24, relied on. (ii) In a case of payment which is made at different term and is not at a uniform rate the duty of the court is to~ con- nect the payment with a festival (in this case Christmas). On the evidence in this case it is clear that the minimum is only one ll)onth's salary payable about Christmas time and this was actually paid in 1951-52 and 1953-54. Therefore the pay- ment of one month's salary as Christmas bonus is proved as an implied condition of service between the appellant and ita workmen on the admitted facts of this case. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 583 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated June 18, 196-2 of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernalrulam, in In- dustrial Dispute No. 38 of 1960. 1964 .Jfarch 2/Y 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1964 G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravin- Management of der Narain, for the appellant. Bombay Co. Ltd. v. Workmen J anardan Sharma, for the respondents. March 25, 1964. The judgment of the livered by Court was de- Wanchoo,J. · W ANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. A dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen as to payment of bonus for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, and was refer- red for adjudication to the tribunal. The respondents claim- ed bonus on two grounds: (i) on the basis of profits earned by the appellant, and (ii) on the basis that payment of some bonus at Christmas had become an implied condition of ser- vice between the appellant and its workmen. It may be men- tioned that the .claim was for four months' wages for each year on the basis of profit bonus. The alternative claim was for 1 t months' wages for each year on the basis 0La11 im- plied term of service. We may also mention that the appel- lant had paid two months' basic salary as bonus for the year 1957-58, and one month's basic pay as bonus for the ye21r 1958-59. The appellant contended that there was no surplus available on the basis of the Full Bench formula applied in such cases and therefore no profit bonus could be paid. It also contended that no bonus was .payable as an implied term of service. The tribunal found on an application of the Full Bench formula that there was no available surplus in either of the two years and therefore no bonu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.