Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.
Decided On : Feb-22-1985
Court : Supreme Court of India
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' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 10', (int) 3 => 'Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'O.Chinnappa Reddy', (int) 1 => 'J.1' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1100', (int) 1 => '300', (int) 2 => '800', (int) 3 => '800', (int) 4 => 'only one', (int) 5 => '10 and 13', (int) 6 => '8', (int) 7 => '13', (int) 8 => 'forty', (int) 9 => 'twenty five', (int) 10 => 'forty', (int) 11 => 'twenty five' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the year', (int) 1 => 'December', (int) 2 => 'the year 1964-65', (int) 3 => 'the year', (int) 4 => '1965', (int) 5 => 'an accounting year', (int) 6 => 'the accounting year', (int) 7 => 'the accounting year', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years of age', (int) 9 => 'the accounting year', (int) 10 => 'all the working days', (int) 11 => 'the days', (int) 12 => 'year', (int) 13 => 'the year', (int) 14 => 'a particular season every year', (int) 15 => 'seasonally', (int) 16 => 'an accounting year', (int) 17 => 'those days of the year', (int) 18 => 'the day' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh', (int) 2 => 'the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act', (int) 3 => 'The Industrial Court', (int) 4 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 5 => 'the High Court', (int) 6 => 'The High Court', (int) 7 => 'the Industrial Court', (int) 8 => 'the High Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'the Industrial Court' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four per cent', (int) 1 => 'nine per cent' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '649867', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1972', 'appellant' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'casenote' => ' - [S.K. Dass, Acting C.J.,; M. Hidayatullah and; A.K. Sarkar, JJ.] By s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which came into force on June 9, 1952, courts were prohibited from directing eviction of a tenant at the suit of a landlord excepting in the cases mentioned in the proviso to it. Clause (c) of the proviso permitted ejectment where the "tenant without obtaining the consent of landlord has before the commencement of this Act sub-let. . . . the premises" Relying on this clause the respondent landlord filed a suit against the appellant and respondent no. 2 for their ejectment from a shop room let to the latter alleging that it had been sub-let to the appellant without his consent. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent land lord had acquiesced in the subletting. The trial judge decreed the suit holding that the respondent landlord had not done so. The appellant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Sub-judge who set aside the order of the trial judge taking the view that the respondent landlord had acquiesced in the sub-letting. He also held that the subletting had commenced not later than November 1950. The landlord moved the 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 Act of 1952. It also held that there was no evidence to justify the appellate court's findings that the respondent had acquiesced in the sub-letting by respondent no. 2 to the appellant. In that view of the matter the High Court allowed the petition of revision. The appellant then appealed to this Court. Held: It was competent for the High Court under s. 35 of the Act of 1952 to interfere with the findings of the court below on the question of acquiescene on the ground that there was no evidence to support that finding. If a court had arrived at a finding without any evidence to support it, it can be legitimately said that it had not decided the case "according to law" within the meaning of that expression in s. 35. Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhai Lall Chowdhury, 119621 Supp. I S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal,119631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 and Lala Beni Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, referred to. The right of' the appellant to challenge the decree of the trial Judge by appeal could not be affected by the failure of the respondent no. 2 to file an appeal. Per Das, Acting C. J., and Hidaytullah, J. (Sarkar, J. dissenting): The first proviso to s. 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not demand that a suit for the eviction of it tenant filed under the Delhl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, must be governed entirely by the provisions of the new Act. The provisions applicable continue to be the provisions of the old Act with this addition that where the new Act has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, those modifications and clarifications should IV applied. Where entirely new rights and new liabilities have been created, the new provisions must not be allowed to override the provisions of the old Act. If the expression "shall have regard to the provisions of this Act" in the first proviso to s. 57(2) means that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, shall apply to ill such suits or proceedings as are referred to in s. 57(2) except in the matter of the jurisdiction of the civil court, then in reality the substantive provision of s. 57(2) will be denuded of its full effect for all practical purposes. Moreover, that would be giving effect to the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1958 retrospectively though s. 57(2) states in clear terms that all suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of the new Act will be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the old Act. The correct approach is to read the first proviso harmoniusly with the substantive provision contained in s. 57(2). Per Sarkar, J. The expression "shall have regard to the provisions of the new Act" in s. 57(2) of the Act of 1958 gives to all the provisions of the Act of 1958 a retrospective operation and not to, some of those provisions. Those words do not mean that the intention was that some of the provisions of the new Act only were to be applied and they cannot be given that meaning because otherwise the effect of the proviso would be to wipe out largely the first part of the sub-section. The words "suits and other proceedings" in sub-s. (2) of s.57 of the Act of 1958 include appeals and revision cases. Hari Shankar v. Rao Giridhari Lal Choudhary [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 Lala Beni' Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, Mukesh Chand v. Jamboo Parshad, (1963) LXV P.L.R. 285, Shri Kishore Aggarwal v. Satya Dev, (1959) LXI P.L.R. 574, Jhabar Mal Chokhani v. Jinendra Parshad (1963) LXV' P.L.R. 469, Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 129, Mysore States Electricity Board v. The Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 127, Bulaqui Das v. Ram 42-2 S. C. India/64. Saran, (1960) LXIII P.L.R. 231, Jiva Bhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 568, Bimal Parshad Jain v. Niadarmal, (1960) LXll P.L.R. 664 and Man Mohan Lal v. B. D. Gupta, (1962) LXIV P.L.R. 51, referred to.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1985-02-22', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' E.S. Venkataramiah,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; R.B. Misra, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a>. This appeal has been filed by the Mazdoor Sangh under a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1985SC758; (1985)2CompLJ65(SC); [1985(50)FLR320]; 1985(1)SCALE301; (1985)2SCC134; [1985]2SCR958; 1985(1)SLJ307(SC); 1985(17)LC666(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '649867' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 10', (int) 3 => 'Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'O.Chinnappa Reddy', (int) 1 => 'J.1' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1100', (int) 1 => '300', (int) 2 => '800', (int) 3 => '800', (int) 4 => 'only one', (int) 5 => '10 and 13', (int) 6 => '8', (int) 7 => '13', (int) 8 => 'forty', (int) 9 => 'twenty five', (int) 10 => 'forty', (int) 11 => 'twenty five' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the year', (int) 1 => 'December', (int) 2 => 'the year 1964-65', (int) 3 => 'the year', (int) 4 => '1965', (int) 5 => 'an accounting year', (int) 6 => 'the accounting year', (int) 7 => 'the accounting year', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years of age', (int) 9 => 'the accounting year', (int) 10 => 'all the working days', (int) 11 => 'the days', (int) 12 => 'year', (int) 13 => 'the year', (int) 14 => 'a particular season every year', (int) 15 => 'seasonally', (int) 16 => 'an accounting year', (int) 17 => 'those days of the year', (int) 18 => 'the day' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh', (int) 2 => 'the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act', (int) 3 => 'The Industrial Court', (int) 4 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 5 => 'the High Court', (int) 6 => 'The High Court', (int) 7 => 'the Industrial Court', (int) 8 => 'the High Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'the Industrial Court' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four per cent', (int) 1 => 'nine per cent' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '649867', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1972', 'appellant' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'casenote' => ' - [S.K. Dass, Acting C.J.,; M. Hidayatullah and; A.K. Sarkar, JJ.] By s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which came into force on June 9, 1952, courts were prohibited from directing eviction of a tenant at the suit of a landlord excepting in the cases mentioned in the proviso to it. Clause (c) of the proviso permitted ejectment where the "tenant without obtaining the consent of landlord has before the commencement of this Act sub-let. . . . the premises" Relying on this clause the respondent landlord filed a suit against the appellant and respondent no. 2 for their ejectment from a shop room let to the latter alleging that it had been sub-let to the appellant without his consent. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent land lord had acquiesced in the subletting. The trial judge decreed the suit holding that the respondent landlord had not done so. The appellant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Sub-judge who set aside the order of the trial judge taking the view that the respondent landlord had acquiesced in the sub-letting. He also held that the subletting had commenced not later than November 1950. The landlord moved the 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 Act of 1952. It also held that there was no evidence to justify the appellate court's findings that the respondent had acquiesced in the sub-letting by respondent no. 2 to the appellant. In that view of the matter the High Court allowed the petition of revision. The appellant then appealed to this Court. Held: It was competent for the High Court under s. 35 of the Act of 1952 to interfere with the findings of the court below on the question of acquiescene on the ground that there was no evidence to support that finding. If a court had arrived at a finding without any evidence to support it, it can be legitimately said that it had not decided the case "according to law" within the meaning of that expression in s. 35. Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhai Lall Chowdhury, 119621 Supp. I S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal,119631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 and Lala Beni Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, referred to. The right of' the appellant to challenge the decree of the trial Judge by appeal could not be affected by the failure of the respondent no. 2 to file an appeal. Per Das, Acting C. J., and Hidaytullah, J. (Sarkar, J. dissenting): The first proviso to s. 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not demand that a suit for the eviction of it tenant filed under the Delhl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, must be governed entirely by the provisions of the new Act. The provisions applicable continue to be the provisions of the old Act with this addition that where the new Act has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, those modifications and clarifications should IV applied. Where entirely new rights and new liabilities have been created, the new provisions must not be allowed to override the provisions of the old Act. If the expression "shall have regard to the provisions of this Act" in the first proviso to s. 57(2) means that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, shall apply to ill such suits or proceedings as are referred to in s. 57(2) except in the matter of the jurisdiction of the civil court, then in reality the substantive provision of s. 57(2) will be denuded of its full effect for all practical purposes. Moreover, that would be giving effect to the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1958 retrospectively though s. 57(2) states in clear terms that all suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of the new Act will be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the old Act. The correct approach is to read the first proviso harmoniusly with the substantive provision contained in s. 57(2). Per Sarkar, J. The expression "shall have regard to the provisions of the new Act" in s. 57(2) of the Act of 1958 gives to all the provisions of the Act of 1958 a retrospective operation and not to, some of those provisions. Those words do not mean that the intention was that some of the provisions of the new Act only were to be applied and they cannot be given that meaning because otherwise the effect of the proviso would be to wipe out largely the first part of the sub-section. The words "suits and other proceedings" in sub-s. (2) of s.57 of the Act of 1958 include appeals and revision cases. Hari Shankar v. Rao Giridhari Lal Choudhary [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 Lala Beni' Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, Mukesh Chand v. Jamboo Parshad, (1963) LXV P.L.R. 285, Shri Kishore Aggarwal v. Satya Dev, (1959) LXI P.L.R. 574, Jhabar Mal Chokhani v. Jinendra Parshad (1963) LXV' P.L.R. 469, Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 129, Mysore States Electricity Board v. The Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 127, Bulaqui Das v. Ram 42-2 S. C. India/64. Saran, (1960) LXIII P.L.R. 231, Jiva Bhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 568, Bimal Parshad Jain v. Niadarmal, (1960) LXll P.L.R. 664 and Man Mohan Lal v. B. D. Gupta, (1962) LXIV P.L.R. 51, referred to.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1985-02-22', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' E.S. Venkataramiah,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; R.B. Misra, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a>. This appeal has been filed by the Mazdoor Sangh under a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1985SC758; (1985)2CompLJ65(SC); [1985(50)FLR320]; 1985(1)SCALE301; (1985)2SCC134; [1985]2SCR958; 1985(1)SLJ307(SC); 1985(17)LC666(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '649867' ) $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' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 10', (int) 3 => 'Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'O.Chinnappa Reddy', (int) 1 => 'J.1' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1100', (int) 1 => '300', (int) 2 => '800', (int) 3 => '800', (int) 4 => 'only one', (int) 5 => '10 and 13', (int) 6 => '8', (int) 7 => '13', (int) 8 => 'forty', (int) 9 => 'twenty five', (int) 10 => 'forty', (int) 11 => 'twenty five' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the year', (int) 1 => 'December', (int) 2 => 'the year 1964-65', (int) 3 => 'the year', (int) 4 => '1965', (int) 5 => 'an accounting year', (int) 6 => 'the accounting year', (int) 7 => 'the accounting year', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years of age', (int) 9 => 'the accounting year', (int) 10 => 'all the working days', (int) 11 => 'the days', (int) 12 => 'year', (int) 13 => 'the year', (int) 14 => 'a particular season every year', (int) 15 => 'seasonally', (int) 16 => 'an accounting year', (int) 17 => 'those days of the year', (int) 18 => 'the day' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh', (int) 2 => 'the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act', (int) 3 => 'The Industrial Court', (int) 4 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 5 => 'the High Court', (int) 6 => 'The High Court', (int) 7 => 'the Industrial Court', (int) 8 => 'the High Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'the Industrial Court' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four per cent', (int) 1 => 'nine per cent' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '649867', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1972', 'appellant' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'casenote' => ' - [S.K. Dass, Acting C.J.,; M. Hidayatullah and; A.K. Sarkar, JJ.] By s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which came into force on June 9, 1952, courts were prohibited from directing eviction of a tenant at the suit of a landlord excepting in the cases mentioned in the proviso to it. Clause (c) of the proviso permitted ejectment where the "tenant without obtaining the consent of landlord has before the commencement of this Act sub-let. . . . the premises" Relying on this clause the respondent landlord filed a suit against the appellant and respondent no. 2 for their ejectment from a shop room let to the latter alleging that it had been sub-let to the appellant without his consent. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent land lord had acquiesced in the subletting. The trial judge decreed the suit holding that the respondent landlord had not done so. The appellant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Sub-judge who set aside the order of the trial judge taking the view that the respondent landlord had acquiesced in the sub-letting. He also held that the subletting had commenced not later than November 1950. The landlord moved the 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 Act of 1952. It also held that there was no evidence to justify the appellate court's findings that the respondent had acquiesced in the sub-letting by respondent no. 2 to the appellant. In that view of the matter the High Court allowed the petition of revision. The appellant then appealed to this Court. Held: It was competent for the High Court under s. 35 of the Act of 1952 to interfere with the findings of the court below on the question of acquiescene on the ground that there was no evidence to support that finding. If a court had arrived at a finding without any evidence to support it, it can be legitimately said that it had not decided the case "according to law" within the meaning of that expression in s. 35. Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhai Lall Chowdhury, 119621 Supp. I S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal,119631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 and Lala Beni Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, referred to. The right of' the appellant to challenge the decree of the trial Judge by appeal could not be affected by the failure of the respondent no. 2 to file an appeal. Per Das, Acting C. J., and Hidaytullah, J. (Sarkar, J. dissenting): The first proviso to s. 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not demand that a suit for the eviction of it tenant filed under the Delhl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, must be governed entirely by the provisions of the new Act. The provisions applicable continue to be the provisions of the old Act with this addition that where the new Act has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, those modifications and clarifications should IV applied. Where entirely new rights and new liabilities have been created, the new provisions must not be allowed to override the provisions of the old Act. If the expression "shall have regard to the provisions of this Act" in the first proviso to s. 57(2) means that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, shall apply to ill such suits or proceedings as are referred to in s. 57(2) except in the matter of the jurisdiction of the civil court, then in reality the substantive provision of s. 57(2) will be denuded of its full effect for all practical purposes. Moreover, that would be giving effect to the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1958 retrospectively though s. 57(2) states in clear terms that all suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of the new Act will be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the old Act. The correct approach is to read the first proviso harmoniusly with the substantive provision contained in s. 57(2). Per Sarkar, J. The expression "shall have regard to the provisions of the new Act" in s. 57(2) of the Act of 1958 gives to all the provisions of the Act of 1958 a retrospective operation and not to, some of those provisions. Those words do not mean that the intention was that some of the provisions of the new Act only were to be applied and they cannot be given that meaning because otherwise the effect of the proviso would be to wipe out largely the first part of the sub-section. The words "suits and other proceedings" in sub-s. (2) of s.57 of the Act of 1958 include appeals and revision cases. Hari Shankar v. Rao Giridhari Lal Choudhary [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 Lala Beni' Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, Mukesh Chand v. Jamboo Parshad, (1963) LXV P.L.R. 285, Shri Kishore Aggarwal v. Satya Dev, (1959) LXI P.L.R. 574, Jhabar Mal Chokhani v. Jinendra Parshad (1963) LXV' P.L.R. 469, Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 129, Mysore States Electricity Board v. The Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 127, Bulaqui Das v. Ram 42-2 S. C. India/64. Saran, (1960) LXIII P.L.R. 231, Jiva Bhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 568, Bimal Parshad Jain v. Niadarmal, (1960) LXll P.L.R. 664 and Man Mohan Lal v. B. D. Gupta, (1962) LXIV P.L.R. 51, referred to.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1985-02-22', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' E.S. Venkataramiah,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; R.B. Misra, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a>. This appeal has been filed by the Mazdoor Sangh under a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1985SC758; (1985)2CompLJ65(SC); [1985(50)FLR320]; 1985(1)SCALE301; (1985)2SCC134; [1985]2SCR958; 1985(1)SLJ307(SC); 1985(17)LC666(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '649867' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act', (int) 2 => 'Section 10', (int) 3 => 'Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'O.Chinnappa Reddy', (int) 1 => 'J.1' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1100', (int) 1 => '300', (int) 2 => '800', (int) 3 => '800', (int) 4 => 'only one', (int) 5 => '10 and 13', (int) 6 => '8', (int) 7 => '13', (int) 8 => 'forty', (int) 9 => 'twenty five', (int) 10 => 'forty', (int) 11 => 'twenty five' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'the year', (int) 1 => 'December', (int) 2 => 'the year 1964-65', (int) 3 => 'the year', (int) 4 => '1965', (int) 5 => 'an accounting year', (int) 6 => 'the accounting year', (int) 7 => 'the accounting year', (int) 8 => 'fifteen years of age', (int) 9 => 'the accounting year', (int) 10 => 'all the working days', (int) 11 => 'the days', (int) 12 => 'year', (int) 13 => 'the year', (int) 14 => 'a particular season every year', (int) 15 => 'seasonally', (int) 16 => 'an accounting year', (int) 17 => 'those days of the year', (int) 18 => 'the day' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 1 => 'the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh', (int) 2 => 'the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act', (int) 3 => 'The Industrial Court', (int) 4 => 'the Mazdoor Sangh', (int) 5 => 'the High Court', (int) 6 => 'The High Court', (int) 7 => 'the Industrial Court', (int) 8 => 'the High Court', (int) 9 => 'the High Court', (int) 10 => 'the Industrial Court' ), 'MONEY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four per cent', (int) 1 => 'nine per cent' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '649867', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1972', 'appellant' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'casenote' => ' - [S.K. Dass, Acting C.J.,; M. Hidayatullah and; A.K. Sarkar, JJ.] By s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which came into force on June 9, 1952, courts were prohibited from directing eviction of a tenant at the suit of a landlord excepting in the cases mentioned in the proviso to it. Clause (c) of the proviso permitted ejectment where the "tenant without obtaining the consent of landlord has before the commencement of this Act sub-let. . . . the premises" Relying on this clause the respondent landlord filed a suit against the appellant and respondent no. 2 for their ejectment from a shop room let to the latter alleging that it had been sub-let to the appellant without his consent. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent land lord had acquiesced in the subletting. The trial judge decreed the suit holding that the respondent landlord had not done so. The appellant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Sub-judge who set aside the order of the trial judge taking the view that the respondent landlord had acquiesced in the sub-letting. He also held that the subletting had commenced not later than November 1950. The landlord moved the 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 Act of 1952. It also held that there was no evidence to justify the appellate court's findings that the respondent had acquiesced in the sub-letting by respondent no. 2 to the appellant. In that view of the matter the High Court allowed the petition of revision. The appellant then appealed to this Court. Held: It was competent for the High Court under s. 35 of the Act of 1952 to interfere with the findings of the court below on the question of acquiescene on the ground that there was no evidence to support that finding. If a court had arrived at a finding without any evidence to support it, it can be legitimately said that it had not decided the case "according to law" within the meaning of that expression in s. 35. Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhai Lall Chowdhury, 119621 Supp. I S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal,119631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 and Lala Beni Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, referred to. The right of' the appellant to challenge the decree of the trial Judge by appeal could not be affected by the failure of the respondent no. 2 to file an appeal. Per Das, Acting C. J., and Hidaytullah, J. (Sarkar, J. dissenting): The first proviso to s. 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not demand that a suit for the eviction of it tenant filed under the Delhl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, must be governed entirely by the provisions of the new Act. The provisions applicable continue to be the provisions of the old Act with this addition that where the new Act has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, those modifications and clarifications should IV applied. Where entirely new rights and new liabilities have been created, the new provisions must not be allowed to override the provisions of the old Act. If the expression "shall have regard to the provisions of this Act" in the first proviso to s. 57(2) means that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, shall apply to ill such suits or proceedings as are referred to in s. 57(2) except in the matter of the jurisdiction of the civil court, then in reality the substantive provision of s. 57(2) will be denuded of its full effect for all practical purposes. Moreover, that would be giving effect to the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1958 retrospectively though s. 57(2) states in clear terms that all suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of the new Act will be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the old Act. The correct approach is to read the first proviso harmoniusly with the substantive provision contained in s. 57(2). Per Sarkar, J. The expression "shall have regard to the provisions of the new Act" in s. 57(2) of the Act of 1958 gives to all the provisions of the Act of 1958 a retrospective operation and not to, some of those provisions. Those words do not mean that the intention was that some of the provisions of the new Act only were to be applied and they cannot be given that meaning because otherwise the effect of the proviso would be to wipe out largely the first part of the sub-section. The words "suits and other proceedings" in sub-s. (2) of s.57 of the Act of 1958 include appeals and revision cases. Hari Shankar v. Rao Giridhari Lal Choudhary [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 933, Pooran Chand v. Motilal, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 906 Lala Beni' Ram v. Kundan Lal, (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 58, Mukesh Chand v. Jamboo Parshad, (1963) LXV P.L.R. 285, Shri Kishore Aggarwal v. Satya Dev, (1959) LXI P.L.R. 574, Jhabar Mal Chokhani v. Jinendra Parshad (1963) LXV' P.L.R. 469, Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 129, Mysore States Electricity Board v. The Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 127, Bulaqui Das v. Ram 42-2 S. C. India/64. Saran, (1960) LXIII P.L.R. 231, Jiva Bhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 568, Bimal Parshad Jain v. Niadarmal, (1960) LXll P.L.R. 664 and Man Mohan Lal v. B. D. Gupta, (1962) LXIV P.L.R. 51, referred to.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1985-02-22', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' E.S. Venkataramiah,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; R.B. Misra, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="/act/51426/payment-of-bonus-act-1965-complete-act">Payment of Bonus Act, 1965</a>. This appeal has been filed by the Mazdoor Sangh under a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1985SC758; (1985)2CompLJ65(SC); [1985(50)FLR320]; 1985(1)SCALE301; (1985)2SCC134; [1985]2SCR958; 1985(1)SLJ307(SC); 1985(17)LC666(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '649867' ) $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: Section 49, Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, Section 10, Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where
PERSON: O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.1
ORDINAL: first
CARDINAL: 1100, 300, 800, 800, only one, 10 and 13, 8, 13, forty, twenty five, forty, twenty five
DATE: the year, December, the year 1964-65, the year, 1965, an accounting year, the accounting year, the accounting year, fifteen years of age, the accounting year, all the working days, the days, year, the year, a particular season every year, seasonally, an accounting year, those days of the year, the day
ORG: the Mazdoor Sangh, the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, The Industrial Court, the Mazdoor Sangh, the High Court, The High Court, the Industrial Court, the High Court, the High Court, the Industrial Court
MONEY: four per cent, nine per cent