WORKMEN OF THE HERCULES INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HERCULES INSURANCE CO. LTD. CALCUTTA

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 07-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
995 
-< 
s. 23A for other purposes. This contention has no 
I960 
force. 
Sliree Changd•o 
The appeal is allowed, and the case is remitted to sugar Mills, Ltd. 
the High Court for deciding the question in ~he light 
v, 
of the observations in our decision in the Rag'//,uvanski Commissioner of 
Mills case (1). 
As the case is remanded, the cost~ of 
Income-ta"· 
this appeal shall be paid by the respondent, but the 
Bo.,,bay 
costs in the High Court will abide the result. 
HSJayatullali J . 
.Appeal allowad . 
. WORKMEN OF THE HERCULES INSURANCE 
CO., LTD. 
v. 
HERCULES INSURANCE CO., LTD., CALCUTTA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADXAR, K. N. WANCHOO 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Claim of bonus-General Insurance busi-
ness-Validity of reference-Industrial Disputes Act, z947 (r4 of 
r947), s. IO(I)-Insurance Act, z938 (IV of z938), s. 3rA(I)(c),pro-
viso (vii). 
In view of the unqualified and absolute prohibition contain~ 
ed ins. 31A(1)(c) of the Insurance Act, 1938, against payment 
of bonus to the employees in general insurance business, the 
exception made by proviso (vii) to that section must be strictly 
confined to the limits prescribed by the said proviso.· 
The policy underlying the proviso clearly is to exclude the 
intervention of Industrial Tribunals·and leave the question of 
payment of such bonu!! entirely to the discretion of the Central 
Government. 
Consequently, where the w.orkmen in general insurance 
business claimed bonus and the Central Government referred 
the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under 
s. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, i947, and the Tribunal, 
on a preliminary ·objection under s. 31A(1}(c) of the Insurance 
Act, 1938, read with proviso (vii) thereof, held that· the refe-
rence was invalid, 
_ 
-
·- · >f' 
t•J [t96•l 2 s.c.R. 978. 
z960 
De&ember 7. 
Workmen of the 
Hercules 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
Held, the decision of the Tribunal was correct and must be ;. 
upheld. 
Insurance Co., Ltd. 
The Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen, [r960] r S.C.R. 
200, relied on. 
v. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
Hercules 
531 of 1959. 
Insurance Co., 
Ltd., Calcutta 
Appeal by special leave from the Awa.rd dated 
October 21, 1957 of the Central Government Industrial 
Tribunal, Dhanba.d, iu Reference No. 6 of 1957. 
N. Dutt,a Mazurndar, G. N. Bhattacharjee and B. P. 
Maheshwari, for the appellants. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-Genera}, of India and R. 
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent. 
1960. December 7. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Gajlffl4ragaakor J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The short question of law 
which falls to be decided in the present appeal is 
whether a dispute raised by the employees of a 
General Insuro.nce Company against their employer ' 
for payment of bonus in any particular year can be 
referred for adjudication by an Industrial Tribunal 
under s. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
(XIV of 1947). This question arises in this way. The 
workmen of the Hercules Insurance Co. ·Ltd. are the 
appellants and the Insurance Company is the respon-
dent before us. On April 11,-1957, the Central Govern-
ment referred the appellants' claim for bonus for the 
years 1954 and 1955 for adjudication to the Industrial 
Tribunal, Dhanbad, constituted under s. 7A of the 
Industrial Disputes. Act, and this reference has been 
made under s. lO(l)(d) of the Act. Before the Tribu-
nal the respondent urged a preliminary objection 
against the validity of the reference itself. Its case 
was that the payment of bonus by an Insurance Com-
pany is conditioned entirely by the relevant provisions 
of the Insurance Act, 1938 (IV of 1938), and that the 
said provisions did not justify the reference of a 
dispute in that behalf for adjudication by any Indus-
trial Tribunal. This preliminary objection was based ,'>- . _ 
on the provisions of s. 31A(l) and proviso (vii) of the 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
997 
Insurance Act. It was also urged by the respondent 
i96o 
that having regard to the limitations imposed on the w k 
th 
General Insurance Companies by s: 400 of the Insu-
0
~:::1~ • 
ranee Act the claim for bonus made by the appellants Insurance Co., Ltd. 
could not be sustained. The Tribunal has upheld the 
v. 
preliminary objection thus raised by the respondent 
Herc.ules 
and held that the reference is invalid. Incidentally it 
lnsurnnce Co., 
h 
1 
.d 
d th 
1 
. d 
d 
400 
d 
Ltd. Calcutta 
a

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