THE WORKMEN OF H.M.T. & ANR. versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, NATIONAL TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA & OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 03-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

850 
THE WORKMEN OF H.M.T. & ANR. 
V, 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, NATIONAL 
TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA & OTHERS 
April 3, 1973 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Paynient of Bonus Act, 1964-Payment of minimum bonus 
under 
s, 10 whether subject to provisions of .r. 16--Where s. 
16(1) 
applies 
minimun1 bonus under s. 10 not 
payable-Different establishments of 
H.M.T. treated separately each having a separate balance.sheet and profit 
and Loss account-Exe111ption under ~· 16(1) must be allowed. 
Unit No. IV of the Hindustan Machine Tools, a public sector under-
taking, was started at Kalamassery, in Kerala in 1963. 
Production and 
sale at this Unit started in 1965-66. 
In an industrial dispute referred to 
the National Tribunal at Calcutta the.workmen.of Unit No. IV claimed 
bo"us for the years 1963-64 to 1966-67 at the same rate as was paid in 
Units Nos. I and II aod the Watch Factory of the H.M.T. at Bangalore. 
It was contended by the workmen of Unit No. IV that bonus was payable 
on the ba•is of the consolidated accounts o'f all the Units of the H.M.T. 
The National Tribunal held that bonus for the year 1963-64 was pay-
able tc the workQ1en of Unit No. IV at the same rate as in Units No5. I 
and Il and the Watch Factory at Bangalore, but no bonus were payable 
to them for the years 1964-65 1966-67. In 
appeal 
to this Court by 
special leave it was contended on behalf of the workmen of Unit No .. IV 
(appelbnts) (i) that minimum bonus was payable to the appellants for 
the years 1964"65 to 1966.-67, under s. 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 
1964 anJ in applying s. 10 the provisions of s. 16 could not be taken into 
consideration; (ii) that the H.M.T. ··had in fact maintained a consolidated 
account for all its Units and the claim of the management that separate 
profit and loss accounts \Vere maintained was falsely made to defeat the 
rights o'f the workmen. 
The management, by leave of the Court challeng-
ed the finding of the Tribunal that bonus was payable to the appellants 
for the year 1963-64. 
HELD : (i) The Tribunal was right in holding that the appellants werec 
not entitled to any bonus for the year 1964-65 to 1966-67. 
(a) Though section IO has not been made subject to section 16 the· 
two provisions will have to be read hafmonious1y so as to give effect to-
the purpose of the Act. 
Section I 0 will apply to all those unlts, which 
are otherv.·ise bound to pay boius, irrespective of the fact whether 
the 
units make profit or Jog<-;. 
Section 16 has to be read as an exception to 
section 10. 
Section 16( 1) gives a total exemption to the estabHshments in 
the 
circumstances n1enHo.rred therein from payment of bonus which includes 
the minin1um bonus also. 
When the section says that an employee of 
the establishment referred to in section 16 shall be entitled "to be paid 
bonus tinder this Act" only if the conditions mentioned therein are satis-
fied, it is idle to contend thr.t, notwithstanding the 
exemption 
granted 
under section 16. the establishment referred to therein is sill bound to pay 
minimum bonus. 
If section 16(1) opplies, section 10 will not entitlo an employee to get 
even the· minimum bonus under section 10. 
Therefore the contention of 
c: 
E 
F 
G 
WORKMEN H.M.T. v. PRESIDING OFFICER (Vaidialingam, J.) 85'1 
A 
the appellants that in any event, the minimum bonus under section 10 
ought to have been awarded, could not be accepted. 
1861 E-HJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Alloy Steel Project v. -The Workmen, 1971 3 S.C.R. 629, referred to. 
(b) In this case Units I and II alone have always been treated together 
'for the computation of bonus. 
All the other three Units and the Watch 
Factory at Bangalore hav0 each 
been treated 
separately and each of 
them has been having a separate balance~sheet and profit and Joss account. 
Thi• is the evidence on record which has been accepted by the Tribunal. 
There was no reason to differ from this finding. 
As Unit No. IV is 
a 
different establishment coming under the proviso and not falling under· 
the exception to the proviso to section 3, the main part of section 3 will 
not assist the appellants. Therefore the exemption claimed under section 
16(1) by the management for 1964-65 to 1966-67 in respect of Unit No. 
IV, has been correctly acceptedly the Tribunal, [863E-G] 
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, [1972] 1 S.C.R. 
594, referred to. 
(ii) The Triburial missed certain items of evidence and proceeded on 
the wrong assumption

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