LexWORKMEN OF M/S BATA SHOE CO., (P) LTD. versus M/S BATA SHOE CO. (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
450 WORKMEN OF M/S DATA SHOE CO., (P) LTD. v. MIS DATA SHOE CO. (P) LTD. May 1, 1972 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] Payment of Bonus Act 1965-P'IJlment of profit bonus-Worktra having agreed in writing to accept bonus in terms of the agreements-- Whether under, s. 32(vii) (a) such agreements bar further bonus. A dispute arose between the respondent company and the appellant• workmen as regards payment of profit bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act 1965. The company, and the appellants, represented by its Union had J,een entering into various agreements from time to time, the last being the agreement on August• 30, 1962 (,Ex. A-5). As per Ex. A-5, the respondent paid bonus for the year 1964 at the rates mentioned thelcein. The appellants demanded that. they should be paid the profit bonus as !)er the Act in addition to what has been paid under the agreement. Ex. A-5 . The Company pleaded s. 32(vii) (a) of the Bonus Act as a -bar to further bonus. On a reforence to the Industrial Tribunal, it was held that. in view of the general bonus paid under agreement Ex. A-5, it was .an annual bonus, though paid qualrterly, and it was linked with production or productivity and that it ·\~'as paid in lieu of bonus based on profits. TherefoPo, the workmen are not entitled to claim bonus for the vear 1964 under the Act. On appeal to this Court, it was contended that paymcuts 11nder the agreement, Ex. A-5, was made quarterly and they do not have th» character of an ·annual bonus. There is no material or record to show that the company paid the amount in lieu of bonus based on profits. The amount paid under the ~greement was only an ex-gratia. payment and not a profit bonus under the Act. The respondent, howe,-er, contended that in order to decide tbr character of the general bonu; paid under the agreement of 1962, previous agreement must be referred to, which would clearly show that what was being paid by ti>• company was production bonus or as an inc.entive wage and not an ex-gratia payment Dismissing the appeal, HELD : The general_ b0nus paid under Art VJ or the agreement dlded August. 30, 1962, Ex. A-5, was a payment of annual bonus based on profits_ Although Article VI of Ex. A-5 does not throw much light as to the nature and charac~" of the general bonus payable under it, a reference back to previous settlements and discussjons between the parties will show that the pattern of bonus paid to the workers were mmetimes called production bonus, ]ater on called ex-gratia paymenL but from 1951 called as general bonus, which was paid quarterly, at the re- quest of ti•• workel-s. at a particular percent~ge based on salary exclud- ing dearness allow!lnce, H'3.ving this background in mind, it is clear that what wa' being paid under Art. VI of Ex. A-5 was a payment linked with production or productivity. The principal emphasis was that the amount, was being paid as an incentive to production and therefore, it was paid as production bonus as a wage incenti~. Further, it was an annual bonus paid from year to yealr not only during the period of agree- ment but also for the succeeding year till the required notice was given under the agreement. Even then, the agrrement was to continue lo have A c D E F G H WORKMEN v. BATA SHOE co. (Vaidialingam, I.) 451 A force notwithstanding· the notice till a fresh agreement en.tered into. Therefore, it is clear that ~ payment of ge°".:a' bonu• paid quarterly was "annual bonus" as contemplated by s. 32(vn) (a) of the :Act. B c D !464 A-465 GI Smith v. Smith, (1923) P.D. 191, and Moss' Emp:res Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Comml;sioners, (1937] 3 All E.R. 381 followed. Under the circumstance< workers could claim not any additional bonus under the Act for the period. for which the agreement was in operation and s. 32(vii) (a) of the Act was a bar to their claim. (465 Cl M/s Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Its Workmen, [1959] Supp, 2, S.C.R. 1012; The New Manek Clwwk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Ahmeda- bad and others v. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 1 and Sanghi Jeevaraj Chewar Chand and others v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana Merchants Workers' Union and another, [1969] l S.C.R. 366, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No.1040 of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 16, 1967 of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Cas• No. V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.