LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF MARINA HOTEL versus THE WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS
THE MANAGEMENT OF MARINA HOTEL
v.
THE WORKMEN
( K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Hotel workmen getting service
charges and tips-If disentitled to get bonus-Casual-cum-sickness
leave-Amount of leave-Delhi Shops and Establishments Act,
1.954 (Delhi 7 of 19-54 ), s. 22.
The award made by
the
Industrial
Tribunal, to
which the dispute between the appellant, a hotel in new Delhi,
and its workmen was referred, was challenged by the appellant
on the grounds inter alia (1) that the workmen got a share
in the service charges and aha some amount by way of tips
from the customers and so no bonus could be awarped to them,
and (2) that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding 15
days casual-cum-sickness leave in view of the fact that s. 22 of
the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, provided only
for a maximum of 12 days for such leave.
It was not disputed
that the workmen in the present case had contributed to the
earning of profits for the years in question, that on a considera-
tion of the wages paid to the workmen by the appellant there
was a wide gap between their existing v.·ages; and the living
wages, and that the amounts received through the distribution
of service charges and tips were quite inadequate to bring the
wages to the level of a living wage.
Held, that it is well-settled that bonus is paid to workmen
out of the available surplus of profits in order to fill in the gap
between the existing wage and the living wage, provided that
~
the workmen have contributed to the earning of profits, and
that, in the present ca~e, if there was an available surplus of
profits in accordance with the Full Bench formula, the workmen
would be entitled to bonus.
Voltas Limited v. Its Workmen, (1961) 3 S. C.R. 167,
distinguished.
Held, further, that the Tribunal was in error in awarding
15 days' casual-cum-sickness leave contrary to the provisions of
•
s. 22 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act
1954 and
that the amount of leave must be reduced to 12 d~ys as piovi-
<;led in the Ac(.
·
1961
4•11"•1 4.
1981
Tht Mana,,ment of
.Varina Hotll
v.
Th. ll'orkmm
"'""",,.. J.
2
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
[1962]
MeMTs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) LimitR,d, New Delhi v.
Their Workmen, A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 413, followed.
CIYIL APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
~o. 393 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
July 1, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in
I.D. No. 9!l of 1958.
S. I'. Varma, for the appellant.
Jcm<1rdrm Shar111<1, for the respondent.
1961. August 4.
Tlw .J1Hlgment of the Court
was delivered by
WA:xcnoo, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave in an industrial matter. There was a clisputc
between the appellant, namely, the l\Iarina Hotel,
New Delhi, and its workmen, which was referred
for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.
The matters in dispute comprised a number of
items ; but in the present appeal we arc concerned
only with the following :-
1.
Bonus for the years 1953-54 and
1954-55.
2.
Leave.
3.
Provident Fund.
4. Scales of Pay.
5.
Dearness Allowance.
We shall <lea I with these pointB one by one.
Bonus.
The first contention of the appellant in this
regard is that as the workmen get a share in the
service-c·harges and also some amount by way of
tips from the customers, no bonus can be awarded
to them. Reliance in this connection jg placrnl on
the obsen·11tio11s of thi:i Court in l'olta .. ~ Limil/!d v.
11.8 Workme11 ('),where in dealing with salesmen it
(lJ [1961] 3 S. C.R. IGi.
•
•
-
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
3
"' was said that salesmen being paid commission on
sales had already taken a share in the profits of
the appellant on a fair basis and therefore there
was
no justification for granting them further
bonus out of the available surplus of profits. The
contention is that the workmen of the appellant
also get a share in the profits on the distribution of
~ service charges among them and therefore they are
not entitled to any further bonus. Now it is well-
settled that bonus is paid to workmen out of the
available surplus of profits in order to fill in the
gap between the existing wage and the living wage
provided the workmen have contributed to the
earning of profits. It is not disputed that the
workmen in the present case have contributed to
the earning of the profits ; nor can it be disputed
on a consideration of tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.