Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Decided On : Mar-05-1997
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 1 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 2 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 22', (int) 4 => 'Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2', (int) 6 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 22', (int) 8 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 17', (int) 10 => 'Section 22', (int) 11 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 12 => 'Section 22', (int) 13 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 14 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 16 => 'Section 15(3', (int) 17 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 18 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 19 => 'Section 4', (int) 20 => 'Section 5', (int) 21 => 'Section 15', (int) 22 => 'Section 3', (int) 23 => 'Section 22', (int) 24 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 25 => 'Section 15(2' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '15(2', (int) 3 => '16', (int) 4 => '31-8-1984', (int) 5 => '6-2-1985', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '31-8-1984', (int) 8 => '31-8-1984', (int) 9 => '31-8-1984', (int) 10 => '31-8-1984.3', (int) 11 => '6-2-1985', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => '22', (int) 15 => '590', (int) 16 => '1', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '5', (int) 21 => '23', (int) 22 => '17-3-1997' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of M.P.', (int) 1 => 'Employer', (int) 2 => 'Government Advocate', (int) 3 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 4 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 6 => 'State', (int) 7 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 8 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 9 => 'Payment of Wages', (int) 10 => 'AIR 1969', (int) 11 => 'SC', (int) 12 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 13 => 'Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 15 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 16 => 'Jabalpur v. Authority' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '6-2-' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 1 => 'Shri Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 3 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 4 => 'v. Surajmal Mehta', (int) 5 => 'B.E.S.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '(twelve months', (int) 1 => 'twelve months', (int) 2 => ''22', (int) 3 => '1947', (int) 4 => '14 of 1947', (int) 5 => '1976', (int) 6 => 'three months' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'under this Act' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bonus' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jabalpur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '504852', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/52040/payment-of-wages-act-1936-complete-act">Payment of Wages Act, 1936</a> - Sections 15(2); ;<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 22', 'appealno' => 'M.P. No. 807 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ] Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Rajendra Menon, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'P.D. Gupta, Govt. Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-03-05', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'C.K. Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">C.K. Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. The firm carries on the business of manufacturing bidis in the State of M.P. The Assistant Labour Commissioner filed application Under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act stating therein that the petitioners did not pay bonus to its workmen in accordance with law. On receipt of the notice the petitioners filed their objection before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Objections of the petitioners were that application having been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and proceeded with the matter. It was further contended that the claim made in the application was barred by limitation and bonus being not a wage, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The aforesaid objections of the petitioners were overruled by the impugned order dated 31-8-1984. Petitioners further contended that the matter being covered by the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, application Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. This objection was also overruled by order dated 6-2-1985. These two orders i.e. orders dated 31-8-1984 and 6-2-1985 are being impugned by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Employer) in the present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Menon appears on behalf of the petitioners and he could not point out any illegality in the order dated 31-8-1984. It is relevant here to state that in the order dated 31-8-1984 the authority has stated that amendment in the petition was allowed and after the amendment the petition shows that it has been filed by the Inspector. It is further held that bonus is a wage and therefore, application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was maintainable. As regards the question of limitation, it held that an issue has been framed and the same shall be answered at that stage. I do not find any error in the order dated 31-8-1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. While assailing the order dated 6-2-1985 learned counsel contends that as the matter is covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Shri Gupta, Government Advocate, representing the respondents submits that the rate at which bonus is to be paid is a matter of calculation and can be adjudicated by the authority Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. He further submits that petitioners had a remedy of appeal Under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Menon submits that the claim laid by the workmen is in the field of adjudication and, therefore, squarely a matter of dispute, as contemplated Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to go into this question. Shri Menon further submits that as the dispute exists between the employer and employee in respect to the bonus payable, which in his submission would obviously include the amount of bonus, such a dispute is squarely covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and once it is so covered authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act cannot entertain such dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'15.............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1)..............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-section (3) :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (twelve months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'22. Reference of dispute under the Act. - Where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an Industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act, or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A plain reading of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act makes it clear that when any deduction had been made from the wages of an employee or any payment of wages has been delayed, the inspector under the Act or the person so mentioned in the provision can apply for a direction contemplated Under Section 15(3) of the Act, In the present case, bonus is claimed for, at a higher amount, than given by the management. Further it has been stated that certain leave period has not been taken into account for the purpose of calculation of bonus. Question therefore arises, as to what amount the workman shall be entitled for bonus is a matter of calculation or is a matter of adjudication. Scope and ambit of Section 15(2) of the Act came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Payment of Wages Inspector v. Surajmal Mehta, Director B.E.S. and I Co., AIR 1969 SC 590; whereas the Apex Court held as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is explicit from the terms of Section 15(2) that the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised Under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed Under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section 5. This is clear from the opening words of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, namely, 'where contrary to the provisions of this Act' any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed. These being governing words in the Sub-section the only applications which the authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 15(2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment Under Section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further to me it appears to be plain that Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act comes into play only when a dispute exists between the employer and the employee with respect to the Bonus payable under the Act or with respect to the application of the Act to an establishment in public sector. In the present case there is no controversy that bonus is payable under the Payment of Bonus Act and in fact certain amount has been paid but there is dispute in regard to amount of bonus to be paid to the employee. In the present case the workman claimed bonus under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act talks of delay in payment of wages also. In view of the authority of this Court in Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, Jabalpur, 1976 MPLJ 23; it does not require any effort to say that bonus is wage. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about proposition that bonus is a wage and if it is not paid within the time, it is delayed payment and the authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Act has discretion to enter into the matter of calculation. Bonus payable under the Act is not under dispute and in fact bonus was paid to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly, but without cost. As the matter is pending since long, the authority shall conclude and pass final order within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the authority on 17-3-1997. In case the authority finds that bonus is payable to the workman, he shall be entitled for interest besides the bonus amount at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition dismissed with the aforesaid direction.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1997(2)MPLJ171', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '504852' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 1 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 2 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 22', (int) 4 => 'Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2', (int) 6 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 22', (int) 8 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 17', (int) 10 => 'Section 22', (int) 11 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 12 => 'Section 22', (int) 13 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 14 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 16 => 'Section 15(3', (int) 17 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 18 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 19 => 'Section 4', (int) 20 => 'Section 5', (int) 21 => 'Section 15', (int) 22 => 'Section 3', (int) 23 => 'Section 22', (int) 24 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 25 => 'Section 15(2' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '15(2', (int) 3 => '16', (int) 4 => '31-8-1984', (int) 5 => '6-2-1985', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '31-8-1984', (int) 8 => '31-8-1984', (int) 9 => '31-8-1984', (int) 10 => '31-8-1984.3', (int) 11 => '6-2-1985', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => '22', (int) 15 => '590', (int) 16 => '1', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '5', (int) 21 => '23', (int) 22 => '17-3-1997' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of M.P.', (int) 1 => 'Employer', (int) 2 => 'Government Advocate', (int) 3 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 4 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 6 => 'State', (int) 7 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 8 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 9 => 'Payment of Wages', (int) 10 => 'AIR 1969', (int) 11 => 'SC', (int) 12 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 13 => 'Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 15 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 16 => 'Jabalpur v. Authority' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '6-2-' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 1 => 'Shri Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 3 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 4 => 'v. Surajmal Mehta', (int) 5 => 'B.E.S.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '(twelve months', (int) 1 => 'twelve months', (int) 2 => ''22', (int) 3 => '1947', (int) 4 => '14 of 1947', (int) 5 => '1976', (int) 6 => 'three months' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'under this Act' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bonus' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jabalpur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '504852', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/52040/payment-of-wages-act-1936-complete-act">Payment of Wages Act, 1936</a> - Sections 15(2); ;<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 22', 'appealno' => 'M.P. No. 807 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ] Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Rajendra Menon, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'P.D. Gupta, Govt. Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-03-05', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'C.K. Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">C.K. Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. The firm carries on the business of manufacturing bidis in the State of M.P. The Assistant Labour Commissioner filed application Under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act stating therein that the petitioners did not pay bonus to its workmen in accordance with law. On receipt of the notice the petitioners filed their objection before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Objections of the petitioners were that application having been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and proceeded with the matter. It was further contended that the claim made in the application was barred by limitation and bonus being not a wage, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The aforesaid objections of the petitioners were overruled by the impugned order dated 31-8-1984. Petitioners further contended that the matter being covered by the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, application Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. This objection was also overruled by order dated 6-2-1985. These two orders i.e. orders dated 31-8-1984 and 6-2-1985 are being impugned by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Employer) in the present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Menon appears on behalf of the petitioners and he could not point out any illegality in the order dated 31-8-1984. It is relevant here to state that in the order dated 31-8-1984 the authority has stated that amendment in the petition was allowed and after the amendment the petition shows that it has been filed by the Inspector. It is further held that bonus is a wage and therefore, application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was maintainable. As regards the question of limitation, it held that an issue has been framed and the same shall be answered at that stage. I do not find any error in the order dated 31-8-1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. While assailing the order dated 6-2-1985 learned counsel contends that as the matter is covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Shri Gupta, Government Advocate, representing the respondents submits that the rate at which bonus is to be paid is a matter of calculation and can be adjudicated by the authority Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. He further submits that petitioners had a remedy of appeal Under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Menon submits that the claim laid by the workmen is in the field of adjudication and, therefore, squarely a matter of dispute, as contemplated Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to go into this question. Shri Menon further submits that as the dispute exists between the employer and employee in respect to the bonus payable, which in his submission would obviously include the amount of bonus, such a dispute is squarely covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and once it is so covered authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act cannot entertain such dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'15.............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1)..............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-section (3) :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (twelve months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'22. Reference of dispute under the Act. - Where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an Industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act, or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A plain reading of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act makes it clear that when any deduction had been made from the wages of an employee or any payment of wages has been delayed, the inspector under the Act or the person so mentioned in the provision can apply for a direction contemplated Under Section 15(3) of the Act, In the present case, bonus is claimed for, at a higher amount, than given by the management. Further it has been stated that certain leave period has not been taken into account for the purpose of calculation of bonus. Question therefore arises, as to what amount the workman shall be entitled for bonus is a matter of calculation or is a matter of adjudication. Scope and ambit of Section 15(2) of the Act came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Payment of Wages Inspector v. Surajmal Mehta, Director B.E.S. and I Co., AIR 1969 SC 590; whereas the Apex Court held as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is explicit from the terms of Section 15(2) that the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised Under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed Under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section 5. This is clear from the opening words of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, namely, 'where contrary to the provisions of this Act' any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed. These being governing words in the Sub-section the only applications which the authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 15(2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment Under Section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further to me it appears to be plain that Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act comes into play only when a dispute exists between the employer and the employee with respect to the Bonus payable under the Act or with respect to the application of the Act to an establishment in public sector. In the present case there is no controversy that bonus is payable under the Payment of Bonus Act and in fact certain amount has been paid but there is dispute in regard to amount of bonus to be paid to the employee. In the present case the workman claimed bonus under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act talks of delay in payment of wages also. In view of the authority of this Court in Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, Jabalpur, 1976 MPLJ 23; it does not require any effort to say that bonus is wage. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about proposition that bonus is a wage and if it is not paid within the time, it is delayed payment and the authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Act has discretion to enter into the matter of calculation. Bonus payable under the Act is not under dispute and in fact bonus was paid to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly, but without cost. As the matter is pending since long, the authority shall conclude and pass final order within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the authority on 17-3-1997. In case the authority finds that bonus is payable to the workman, he shall be entitled for interest besides the bonus amount at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition dismissed with the aforesaid direction.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1997(2)MPLJ171', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '504852' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 1 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 2 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 22', (int) 4 => 'Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2', (int) 6 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 22', (int) 8 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 17', (int) 10 => 'Section 22', (int) 11 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 12 => 'Section 22', (int) 13 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 14 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 16 => 'Section 15(3', (int) 17 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 18 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 19 => 'Section 4', (int) 20 => 'Section 5', (int) 21 => 'Section 15', (int) 22 => 'Section 3', (int) 23 => 'Section 22', (int) 24 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 25 => 'Section 15(2' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '15(2', (int) 3 => '16', (int) 4 => '31-8-1984', (int) 5 => '6-2-1985', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '31-8-1984', (int) 8 => '31-8-1984', (int) 9 => '31-8-1984', (int) 10 => '31-8-1984.3', (int) 11 => '6-2-1985', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => '22', (int) 15 => '590', (int) 16 => '1', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '5', (int) 21 => '23', (int) 22 => '17-3-1997' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of M.P.', (int) 1 => 'Employer', (int) 2 => 'Government Advocate', (int) 3 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 4 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 6 => 'State', (int) 7 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 8 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 9 => 'Payment of Wages', (int) 10 => 'AIR 1969', (int) 11 => 'SC', (int) 12 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 13 => 'Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 15 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 16 => 'Jabalpur v. Authority' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '6-2-' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 1 => 'Shri Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 3 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 4 => 'v. Surajmal Mehta', (int) 5 => 'B.E.S.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '(twelve months', (int) 1 => 'twelve months', (int) 2 => ''22', (int) 3 => '1947', (int) 4 => '14 of 1947', (int) 5 => '1976', (int) 6 => 'three months' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'under this Act' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bonus' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jabalpur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '504852', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/52040/payment-of-wages-act-1936-complete-act">Payment of Wages Act, 1936</a> - Sections 15(2); ;<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 22', 'appealno' => 'M.P. No. 807 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ] Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Rajendra Menon, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'P.D. Gupta, Govt. Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-03-05', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'C.K. Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">C.K. Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. The firm carries on the business of manufacturing bidis in the State of M.P. The Assistant Labour Commissioner filed application Under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act stating therein that the petitioners did not pay bonus to its workmen in accordance with law. On receipt of the notice the petitioners filed their objection before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Objections of the petitioners were that application having been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and proceeded with the matter. It was further contended that the claim made in the application was barred by limitation and bonus being not a wage, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The aforesaid objections of the petitioners were overruled by the impugned order dated 31-8-1984. Petitioners further contended that the matter being covered by the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, application Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. This objection was also overruled by order dated 6-2-1985. These two orders i.e. orders dated 31-8-1984 and 6-2-1985 are being impugned by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Employer) in the present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Menon appears on behalf of the petitioners and he could not point out any illegality in the order dated 31-8-1984. It is relevant here to state that in the order dated 31-8-1984 the authority has stated that amendment in the petition was allowed and after the amendment the petition shows that it has been filed by the Inspector. It is further held that bonus is a wage and therefore, application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was maintainable. As regards the question of limitation, it held that an issue has been framed and the same shall be answered at that stage. I do not find any error in the order dated 31-8-1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. While assailing the order dated 6-2-1985 learned counsel contends that as the matter is covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Shri Gupta, Government Advocate, representing the respondents submits that the rate at which bonus is to be paid is a matter of calculation and can be adjudicated by the authority Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. He further submits that petitioners had a remedy of appeal Under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Menon submits that the claim laid by the workmen is in the field of adjudication and, therefore, squarely a matter of dispute, as contemplated Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to go into this question. Shri Menon further submits that as the dispute exists between the employer and employee in respect to the bonus payable, which in his submission would obviously include the amount of bonus, such a dispute is squarely covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and once it is so covered authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act cannot entertain such dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'15.............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1)..............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-section (3) :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (twelve months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'22. Reference of dispute under the Act. - Where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an Industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act, or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A plain reading of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act makes it clear that when any deduction had been made from the wages of an employee or any payment of wages has been delayed, the inspector under the Act or the person so mentioned in the provision can apply for a direction contemplated Under Section 15(3) of the Act, In the present case, bonus is claimed for, at a higher amount, than given by the management. Further it has been stated that certain leave period has not been taken into account for the purpose of calculation of bonus. Question therefore arises, as to what amount the workman shall be entitled for bonus is a matter of calculation or is a matter of adjudication. Scope and ambit of Section 15(2) of the Act came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Payment of Wages Inspector v. Surajmal Mehta, Director B.E.S. and I Co., AIR 1969 SC 590; whereas the Apex Court held as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is explicit from the terms of Section 15(2) that the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised Under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed Under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section 5. This is clear from the opening words of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, namely, 'where contrary to the provisions of this Act' any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed. These being governing words in the Sub-section the only applications which the authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 15(2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment Under Section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further to me it appears to be plain that Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act comes into play only when a dispute exists between the employer and the employee with respect to the Bonus payable under the Act or with respect to the application of the Act to an establishment in public sector. In the present case there is no controversy that bonus is payable under the Payment of Bonus Act and in fact certain amount has been paid but there is dispute in regard to amount of bonus to be paid to the employee. In the present case the workman claimed bonus under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act talks of delay in payment of wages also. In view of the authority of this Court in Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, Jabalpur, 1976 MPLJ 23; it does not require any effort to say that bonus is wage. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about proposition that bonus is a wage and if it is not paid within the time, it is delayed payment and the authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Act has discretion to enter into the matter of calculation. Bonus payable under the Act is not under dispute and in fact bonus was paid to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly, but without cost. As the matter is pending since long, the authority shall conclude and pass final order within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the authority on 17-3-1997. In case the authority finds that bonus is payable to the workman, he shall be entitled for interest besides the bonus amount at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition dismissed with the aforesaid direction.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1997(2)MPLJ171', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '504852' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 1 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 2 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 22', (int) 4 => 'Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2', (int) 6 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 22', (int) 8 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 17', (int) 10 => 'Section 22', (int) 11 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 12 => 'Section 22', (int) 13 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 14 => 'the Industrial Disputes Act', (int) 15 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 16 => 'Section 15(3', (int) 17 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 18 => 'Section 15(2', (int) 19 => 'Section 4', (int) 20 => 'Section 5', (int) 21 => 'Section 15', (int) 22 => 'Section 3', (int) 23 => 'Section 22', (int) 24 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 25 => 'Section 15(2' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '15(2', (int) 3 => '16', (int) 4 => '31-8-1984', (int) 5 => '6-2-1985', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => '31-8-1984', (int) 8 => '31-8-1984', (int) 9 => '31-8-1984', (int) 10 => '31-8-1984.3', (int) 11 => '6-2-1985', (int) 12 => '1', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => '22', (int) 15 => '590', (int) 16 => '1', (int) 17 => 'two', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '5', (int) 21 => '23', (int) 22 => '17-3-1997' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the State of M.P.', (int) 1 => 'Employer', (int) 2 => 'Government Advocate', (int) 3 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 4 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 5 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 6 => 'State', (int) 7 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 8 => 'the Supreme Court', (int) 9 => 'Payment of Wages', (int) 10 => 'AIR 1969', (int) 11 => 'SC', (int) 12 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 13 => 'Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 15 => 'the Payment of Wages Act', (int) 16 => 'Jabalpur v. Authority' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '6-2-' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 1 => 'Shri Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 3 => 'Shri Menon', (int) 4 => 'v. Surajmal Mehta', (int) 5 => 'B.E.S.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '(twelve months', (int) 1 => 'twelve months', (int) 2 => ''22', (int) 3 => '1947', (int) 4 => '14 of 1947', (int) 5 => '1976', (int) 6 => 'three months' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'under this Act' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bonus' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Jabalpur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '504852', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/52040/payment-of-wages-act-1936-complete-act">Payment of Wages Act, 1936</a> - Sections 15(2); ;<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 22', 'appealno' => 'M.P. No. 807 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kalekhan Mohd. (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ] Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Rajendra Menon, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'P.D. Gupta, Govt. Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1997-03-05', 'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'C.K. Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">C.K. Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. The firm carries on the business of manufacturing bidis in the State of M.P. The Assistant Labour Commissioner filed application Under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act stating therein that the petitioners did not pay bonus to its workmen in accordance with law. On receipt of the notice the petitioners filed their objection before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Objections of the petitioners were that application having been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and proceeded with the matter. It was further contended that the claim made in the application was barred by limitation and bonus being not a wage, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The aforesaid objections of the petitioners were overruled by the impugned order dated 31-8-1984. Petitioners further contended that the matter being covered by the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, application Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. This objection was also overruled by order dated 6-2-1985. These two orders i.e. orders dated 31-8-1984 and 6-2-1985 are being impugned by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Employer) in the present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Shri Menon appears on behalf of the petitioners and he could not point out any illegality in the order dated 31-8-1984. It is relevant here to state that in the order dated 31-8-1984 the authority has stated that amendment in the petition was allowed and after the amendment the petition shows that it has been filed by the Inspector. It is further held that bonus is a wage and therefore, application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was maintainable. As regards the question of limitation, it held that an issue has been framed and the same shall be answered at that stage. I do not find any error in the order dated 31-8-1984.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. While assailing the order dated 6-2-1985 learned counsel contends that as the matter is covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Shri Gupta, Government Advocate, representing the respondents submits that the rate at which bonus is to be paid is a matter of calculation and can be adjudicated by the authority Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. He further submits that petitioners had a remedy of appeal Under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Menon submits that the claim laid by the workmen is in the field of adjudication and, therefore, squarely a matter of dispute, as contemplated Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to go into this question. Shri Menon further submits that as the dispute exists between the employer and employee in respect to the bonus payable, which in his submission would obviously include the amount of bonus, such a dispute is squarely covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and once it is so covered authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act cannot entertain such dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'15.............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1)..............</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-section (3) :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (twelve months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'22. Reference of dispute under the Act. - Where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an Industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act, or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A plain reading of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act makes it clear that when any deduction had been made from the wages of an employee or any payment of wages has been delayed, the inspector under the Act or the person so mentioned in the provision can apply for a direction contemplated Under Section 15(3) of the Act, In the present case, bonus is claimed for, at a higher amount, than given by the management. Further it has been stated that certain leave period has not been taken into account for the purpose of calculation of bonus. Question therefore arises, as to what amount the workman shall be entitled for bonus is a matter of calculation or is a matter of adjudication. Scope and ambit of Section 15(2) of the Act came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Payment of Wages Inspector v. Surajmal Mehta, Director B.E.S. and I Co., AIR 1969 SC 590; whereas the Apex Court held as follows :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is explicit from the terms of Section 15(2) that the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised Under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed Under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section 5. This is clear from the opening words of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, namely, 'where contrary to the provisions of this Act' any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed. These being governing words in the Sub-section the only applications which the authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 15(2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment Under Section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Further to me it appears to be plain that Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act comes into play only when a dispute exists between the employer and the employee with respect to the Bonus payable under the Act or with respect to the application of the Act to an establishment in public sector. In the present case there is no controversy that bonus is payable under the Payment of Bonus Act and in fact certain amount has been paid but there is dispute in regard to amount of bonus to be paid to the employee. In the present case the workman claimed bonus under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act talks of delay in payment of wages also. In view of the authority of this Court in Junior Labour Inspector (Central) Jabalpur v. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, Jabalpur, 1976 MPLJ 23; it does not require any effort to say that bonus is wage. As stated earlier, there is no dispute about proposition that bonus is a wage and if it is not paid within the time, it is delayed payment and the authority exercising the power Under Section 15(2) of the Act has discretion to enter into the matter of calculation. Bonus payable under the Act is not under dispute and in fact bonus was paid to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly, but without cost. As the matter is pending since long, the authority shall conclude and pass final order within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the authority on 17-3-1997. In case the authority finds that bonus is payable to the workman, he shall be entitled for interest besides the bonus amount at the rate of 12% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition dismissed with the aforesaid direction.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1997(2)MPLJ171', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of M.P. and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '504852' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: the Payment of Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, Section 22, Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2, the Payment of Wages Act, Section 22, the Payment of Wages Act, Section 17, Section 22, the Payment of Wages Act, Section 22, Section 15(2, the Industrial Disputes Act, Section 15(2, Section 15(3, Section 15(2, Section 15(2, Section 4, Section 5, Section 15, Section 3, Section 22, the Payment of Bonus Act, Section 15(2
NORP: J.1
CARDINAL: 1, 2, 15(2, 16, 31-8-1984, 6-2-1985, two, 31-8-1984, 31-8-1984, 31-8-1984, 31-8-1984.3, 6-2-1985, 1, 3, 22, 590, 1, two, 13, 2, 5, 23, 17-3-1997
ORG: the State of M.P., Employer, Government Advocate, the Payment of Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, State, the Payment of Wages Act, the Supreme Court, Payment of Wages, AIR 1969, SC, the Apex Court, Authority, the Payment of Bonus Act, the Payment of Wages Act, Jabalpur v. Authority
QUANTITY: 6-2-
PERSON: Shri Menon, Shri Gupta, Shri Menon, Shri Menon, v. Surajmal Mehta, B.E.S.
DATE: (twelve months, twelve months, '22, 1947, 14 of 1947, 1976, three months
TIME: under this Act
FAC: Bonus
GPE: Jabalpur
PERCENT: 12%