Skip to content


Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Labour and Industrial

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1972

Judge

Reported in

AIR1985SC758; (1985)2CompLJ65(SC); [1985(50)FLR320]; 1985(1)SCALE301; (1985)2SCC134; [1985]2SCR958; 1985(1)SLJ307(SC); 1985(17)LC666(SC)

Acts

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 13

Appellant

Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh

Respondent

Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.

Excerpt:


.....high court in revision under s. 35 of the act. while the matter was pending in the high court, the delhi rent control act, 1958, came into force. section 57 of the act of 1958, provided; "(1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed. (2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of this act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act, as if the said act had continued in force and this act had not been passed: provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises to which s. 54does not apply, the court or other authority shall have regard to the provisions of this act: provided further that the, provisions for under the said act shall continue in force in respect of suit,, and proceedings disposed of thereunder." the court held that by reason of the provisions of subs. (2) of s. 57 of the act of 1958 the revision case had to be dis- posed of in accordance with the provisions of..........the clerical side and in the operation and maintenance of machines. the other 800 employees are seasonal employees who are so employed because the factory itself does not work through out the year but works during a certain season every year from december when the sugarcane crop is ready for crushing until the crushing is over. the employer refused to pay bonus to the seasonal employees during the year 1964-65 on the ground that they were not employed through out the year. a dispute arose between the management and the mazdoor sangh which was referred to the industrial court madhya pradesh, indore for arbitration under section 49 of the madhya pradesh industrial relations act. the industrial court decided in favour of the workers, but on a writ petition filed by the company, the award of the arbitrator was quashed and it was held that the workers were only entitled to proportionate bonus and not the minimum bonus guaranteed by section 10 of the payment of bonus act, 1965. this appeal has been filed by the mazdoor sangh under a certificate granted by the high court of madhya pradesh.2. to our minds the question is a simple one and is capable of only one answer. sections 10 and.....

Judgment:


O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.

1. The first respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar and employing over 1100 workers, 300 of them on a permanent basis and 800 on a seasonal basis. The permanent employees are those employed on the clerical side and in the operation and maintenance of machines. The other 800 employees are seasonal employees who are so employed because the factory itself does not work through out the year but works during a certain season every year from December when the sugarcane crop is ready for crushing until the crushing is over. The employer refused to pay bonus to the seasonal employees during the year 1964-65 on the ground that they were not employed through out the year. A dispute arose between the management and the Mazdoor Sangh which was referred to the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh, Indore for arbitration under Section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court decided in favour of the workers, but on a writ petition filed by the company, the award of the arbitrator was quashed and it was held that the workers were only entitled to proportionate bonus and not the minimum bonus guaranteed by Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. This appeal has been filed by the Mazdoor Sangh under a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

2. To our minds the question is a simple one and is capable of only one answer. Sections 10 and 13 of the Payment of Bonus Act, as they stood at the relevant time, were as follows:

Section 10. PAYMENT OF MINIMUM BONUS-Subject to the provisions of Sections 8 and 13 every employer shall be bound to pay to every employee in an accounting year a minimum bonus which shall be four per cent of the salary or wage earned by the employee during the accounting year or forty rupees, whichever is higher, whether there are profits in the accounting year or not; Provided that where such employee has not completed fifteen years of age at the beginning of the accounting year, the provisions of this Section shall have effect in relation to such employee as if for the words 'forty rupees', the words 'twenty five rupees' were substituted.

Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where an employee has not worked for all the working days in any accounting year, the minimum bonus of forty rupees or, as the case may be, of twenty five rupees, per cent, of his salary or wage for the days he has worked in that accounting year shall be proportionately reduced.

The High Court has interpreted the words 'working days in any accounting year' as meaning all those days of the year except holidays. While such an interpretation may be alright in the case of a factory which works all through the year, it would be hardly appropriate in the case of a factory which works during a particular season every year. In the case of a factory which works seasonally during an accounting year, 'working days in any accounting year' can only mean those days of the year during which the employee concerned is actually allowed to work. That was the interpretation which was placed upon the expression by the Industrial Court and we think it is the proper interpretation. Having regard to the scheme and the purpose of the Act, we do not think that the High Court was justified in placing a different construction on the meaning of the expression 'working days in any accounting year'. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Industrial Court. The bonus payable to the employees will carry interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum, from the day when the bonus became due until the date of payment. The appeal is allowed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //