Bonus -I need the judgement
sandipb14
(Querist) 23 April 2008
This query is : Resolved
APPLICABILTY OF PAYMENT OF
BONUS ACT, 1970
CAN ANY BODY SENT ME THE JUDGEMENT ?
It is self contained and independent Code as held by Supreme Court.
Neither the definition of ‘employee’ nor any other provision of the Act provides that the employees engaged through the contractor will be entitled to bonus as provided under the payment of Bonus act, 1970.
The Contract Labour (Regulation & abolition) Act nowhere provides that the employees of the contractor will be entitles to bonus from the principal employer.
Ruling – The Kerala High Court has held that the principal employees of the contractor since bonus does not come within the purview of ‘wages’ under the contract labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act.
(commico Burani zinc Ltd.v. pappacham, 1989 LLR 123 (Ker.HC)
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 23 April 2008
I am not sure but it seems you are looking for
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai & Others
1976 AIR(SC) 1455
sandipb14
(Querist) 25 April 2008
Hi Thukralji
If you have "Mumbai Kamagar Judgement" then pls fwd. me it's urgently req.
Thanks & Regards
Sandip
Manish Singh
(Expert) 02 May 2008
PETITIONER:
MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA, BOMBAY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S ABDULBHAI FAIZULLABHAI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/03/1976
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1455 1976 SCR (3) 591
1976 SCC (3) 832
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1979 SC 876 (5)
RF 1982 SC 149 (971)
R 1984 SC 457 (3)
R 1986 SC1486 (4)
ACT:
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965-Workers' Union-Not being a
party to dispute had locus standi-Bonus Act-If a complete
code-Bonus based on custom, usage or a condition of service-
If excluded by the Act.
Res judicata-if applicable to industrial disputes.
HEADNOTE:
A considerable number of workmen were employed by a
large number of small businessmen in a locality in the city.
Prior to 1965, the employers made ex-gratia payment to the
workers by way of bonus which they stopped from that year. A
Board of Arbitrators appointed under s. 10A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, to which the bonus dispute was
referred, rejected the workers demand for bonus. The dispute
was eventually referred to an Industrial Tribunal which in
limine dismissed the workers' demand as being barred by res
judicata, in view of the decision of the Arbitration Board.
The Tribunal in addition. held that bonus so far paid having
been founded on tradition and custom, did not fall within
the four-corners of the Bonus Act which is a complete code
and came to the conclusion that the workers were not
entitled bonus.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that (i) the
appellant-Union not being a party to the dispute had no
locus standi, (ii) the claim of the workmen not being
profit-based bonus, which is what the Bonus Act deals with,
the Act has no application to this case; and (iii) since no
case of customary or contract bonus was urged before the
Arbitration Board such a ground was barred by the general
principles of res judicata.
Dismissing the appeal.
^
HELD: 1(a) In an industrial dispute the process of
conflict resolution is informal, rough and ready and invites
a liberal approach. Technically the union cannot be the
appellant, the workmen being the real parties. There is a
terminological lapse in the cause title, but a reading of
the petition, the description of the parties, the grounds
urged and grievances aired, show that the battle was between
the workers and the employers and the Union represented the
workers. The substance of the matter being obvious, formal
defects fade away. [596H]
(b) Procedural prescriptions are handmaids, not
mistresses of justice and failure of fair play is the spirit
in which Courts must view processual deviances. Public
interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus
standi in our socio-economic circumstances, conceptual
latitudinarianism permits taking liberties with
individualisation of the right to invoke the higher courts
where the remedy is shared by a considerable number,
particularly when they are weaker. [597B; D]
Dhabolkar [1976] 1 S.C.R. 306 and Nawabganj Sugar Mills
[1976] 1 S.C.C. 120 held inapplicable.
(e) In industrial law collective bargaining, union
representation at conciliations, arbitrations, adjudications
and appellate and other proceedings is a welcome development
and an enlightened advance in industrial life. [597G]
In the instant case the union is an abbreviation for
the totality of workmen involved in the dispute. The appeal
is, therefore, an appeal by the workmen compendiously
projected and impleaded through the union. [598D]
592
2(a) The demands referred by the State Govt. under s.
10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically speak
of payment of bonus by the employers which had become custom
or usage or a condition of service in the establishmen
