Case title:
Union of India Vs United Planters Association of Southern India
Date of Order:
11/07/2022
Bench:
Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath
Parties:
Union of India – Petitioners
United Planters Association of Southern India – Respondents
SUBJECT
The Union of India and other parties requested that several writ petitions that were pending before various High Courts and challenging the constitutionality of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 be transferred to the Supreme Court, owing to their similar qualities and to avoid discrepancies in rulings of different High Courts. The petitions were dismissed by the bench made up of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath.
FACTS
- Passing of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 invited roughly 140 writ petitions in more than 18 High Courts all over India.
- The Amendment Act introduced two important changes to the Payment of Bonus Act of 1965, the first one in Clause (13) of Section 2 raising the salary ceiling from Rs.10,000/- to Rs. 21,000/- and the second change in Section 12 increasing the minimum salary for calculation of bonus from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 7,000/-.
- A plethora of writ petitions sprung up challenging the retrospective aspect of the amendment which required the payment of bonus from the year 2014-2015 and the necessity of introducing a new minimum wage factor in the process of calculating bonuses.
- These petitions have been receiving different treatment depending upon the High Court. Some have ruled that the Amendment Act will come into force from the year 2015-16 and others have ruled that it will come into effect from the year 2016-17.
- The petitioners, represented by the Union of India, ask that all outstanding writ petitions be transferred to this Court after various interim orders from High Courts. Some of the petition responders have answered, either in opposition to or in support of the petitions, depending on their individual positions.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners submitted that retrospective application and establishment of a relationship between minimum wages and bonus calculation form the crux of all the Writ petitions filed in the High Courts.
- Further it was explained that due to the issues being numerous and spread out in various High Courts, there is an increased chance of discrepancies arising out of the Judgments in regards to these writ petitions, and transferring all of them to this Court would be the best way to prevent that.
- ASG further submitted that concentrating all of these matters in one single High Court would not be an option as it would entail hardship for the applicants in a new and different environment in contrast to their original jurisdiction court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The learned counsels appearing for the respondents stated that if the grounds of conflicting decisions by different High Courts on matters of the same crux of the issue are considered valid then this Apex court will have to acquire jurisdiction of all matters challenging central statutes, going with the logic.
- Thus, it was submitted that the mere possibility of differences in decisions of various High Courts cannot be used as a valid ground in transferring petitions under Article 139A of the constitution.
- It was further argued that if the petitions were transferred to the Apex court, then the applicants would lose the right to appeal the decision to a higher body. Reliance was placed upon the case of Union of India v. M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, which denotes a similar situation as the current case, and the UoI’s plea for transfer of similar cases was rejected.
- Countering the petitioner’s arguments that stated that all the writ petitions contained the crux of the matter, it was submitted by the respondents that the same was not true as there are many other subjective and factual differences that cannot be ignored or incorporated within other cases.
JUDGMENT
- The bench observed that the elements amended in Section 12 are subject to the discretion of the appropriate government, which more often that not is the state government, thus transfer of such writ petitions would amount to borderline interference in the state’s affairs.
CONCLUSION
It was thus decided by the court that in light of the lack of a structural equation for the determination of the criteria for transfer, the petitions cannot be transferred to the Apex Court on the grounds of discrepancies arising in the decisions of various High Courts in which the petitions are currently active. And that there was no need to transfer all the matters to one High Court because it is up to the Jurisdictional High Court to decide on the matter while keeping its own factual backdrop in mind.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
