LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF TOCKLAI EXPERIMENTAL STATION REPRESENTED BY THE INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION versus THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 557 ate custody; but we must direct that due facilities for inspection should be afforded to the Customs authoritfos in the shape of a separate room and suitable furniture and time extended beyond the ordinar.v Court hours. Inspection should be carri· ed on in the presence of a Court official, and adequate privacy for questioning witnesses etc., should be afforded to the Customs authorities, whenever they find it necessary. In our opinion, if these facilities are granted-. and we direct that they be granted-a period of four months from the date this order reaches the Magistrate should prove enough. 'Ve, therefore, set aside the order for the handing over of the doouments to the Customs authorities, and make a direction for the disposal of the records, as stated above. We may add that this order does not apply to the 63 docu- ments, which the Customs authorities have already agreed to return to the party. Appeal allowed. THE MANAGEMENT OF TOCK.LAI EXPERI- MENTAL STATION REPRESENTED BY THE INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION v. THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER (And connected appeal) (P. B. GAJENDRAGADK.AR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. WAN<JHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Puja bonus-Basia of tht claim-Profit bonus-Housing aceommodalion-House allow- ance. The appellant, a research institution established for the purpose of improving the quality of tea was managed by the India Tea Assciation. The employees 'made claim,s, inler 1961 \J. ohd, $trqjuddin v. R. C. Alishra Hidayatullah J. 1961 No,,mlm Ill. 1961 1 ht ma11111tm111t of Tock/oi ExpnimtnJal Statio.'I rt/W1Jtn1td b;- tht Indian Tta AJSociation v. 'fht 1Votkmcn 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. alia, for ( 1) free housing accommodation or adequate allow- ance in lieu thereof, and (2) grant of bonus. The tribunal, to which the matter was referred by the Government considered the financial position of the appellant and came to the con- clusion that the demand for housing accommodation was not justified and that the ends of justice would be met if a flat rate of enhancement of Rs. 20/· was awarded. As regards the demand for bonus the tribunal felt that it would be inexpedi- ent to apply the formula which governed the decision of indus· trial claims for the payment of bonus, but made an award directing the appellant to pay puja bonus to its employees on the ground that what was described as puja bonus was being given to workmen who were similarly situated as also to the clarical staff working at the Indian Tea Association at Cal- cutta and that refusing the workmen's claim for bonus against the appellant would amount to discrimination. Held, that a demand for the provision of housing accom- modation can he reasonably entertained where it appeared that the financial position of the employer can bear the burden involved, that under the present economic conditions prevail- ing in the industry the responsibility for providing housing accommodation cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of the employer, and that in due course the problem would have to be tackled by the industry in cooperation with the State, which would have to bear a part of that responsibility. The Patna Electrk Supply Co., Ud. Patna v. 'l'he Patna ]<;kctric Supply Workers' Ut1ion, [1959] Supp. 2. S.C.R. 761, relied on. Held, further, that before a claim for the grant of puja bonus could be sustained it must be shown ( 1) that it was consistently paid by the employer to his employees from year to year at the same rate, and (2) that it had been paid even in years of l= and that it had no rdation to the profit made by the employer during the relevant year. A claim for puja bonus could also be made on the ground that the payment of such bonus was an implied term in the contract of employment. Th£ Graham Trading Co. (Indian) Ud. v. Its Workmen, [1960] l S.C.R. 107 and Mis. Ispahani Lui., Calcaua v, Iapa- hani Employed Union, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 24, followed. Industrial profit bonus, which u governed by the appli- cation of the well known formula, cannot be awarded unless a specific year for which the claim is made u indicated and it is alleged that there is available surplus in the hands of the employer for that year. (1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 559 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 459 and 460 of 1960 Appeals by special leave from the award dated March l 0, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.