SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(SC) 114

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I.D. DUA AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
The Workmen of H. M. T. and another, Appellants
Versus
The Presiding Officer, National Tribunal Calcutta and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1970, D/- 3-4-1973.

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 7-11 - Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Section 10, 16, 2, 3, 8, 13, 20, 16 (1), (2) - Companies Act, 2013 - Management - Workmen - Bonus - Whether demand of workmen in Hindustan Machine Tools I and II at Bangalore for payment of Bonus at rate of 20 per cent of their salary for year is justified - Whether workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools at Kalamasseri, Pinjore, and Hyderabad are entitled to any bonus and if so, what should be quantum of such bonus - Whether demand of workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools I and II of Bangalore and of Hindustan Machine Tools E&1 at Kalamasseri that bonus should be calculated on basis of a consolidated Profit and Loss Account for all units and all activities and not on basis of profit and Loss Account of separate units and separate activities is justified - Whether it should also consider question of bonus for any other year in respect of Units I and II at Bangalore - Whether situated in same place or in different places, all such departments or undertakings or branches shall be treated as parts of same establishment for purpose of computation of bonus under this Act - Whether before or after commencement of this Act, employees of such establishment shall be entitled to be paid bonus under this Act only - Whether units make profit or incur loss - Whether it is liable to be treated as part of establishment of H. M. T - Whether it is entitled to exemption from payment of bonus under Section 16 - Held, From evidence of this witness it is clear that no profit bonus was paid to above units prior and what was paid was only production bonus based on individual performance - Apart from evidence of this witness, there is also an agreement Ext. between management and workmen of Units Nos. 1 and II at Bangalore - That agreement provides for payment of deferred annual bonus - Quantum of such.bonus as well as circumstances under which it is to be paid to each worker, has also been detailed in said agreement - Second finding that has been attacked by Mr. Pai is statement, contained in paragraph 25 of award that, "it appears from Ext. A (2), balance-sheet and profit and loss account for year 1963-64, an amount of Rs. 18,80.902/- was paid as bonus to employees of Watch Factory and Units Nos. I and II at Bangalore - It will be seen that no claim whatsoever was put forward before Tribunal by workmen of Watch Factory – Court have already referred to stand taken by workmen of Watch Factory, who were getting bonus at maximum rate, that they wanted claim of other unions for bonus on consolidated balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts to be rejected - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- This appeal by special leave by the workmen of the Hindustan Machine Tools Unit IV, Kalamassery, is directed against the award dated April 16, 1969, of the National Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. NIT, 6 of l967, holding that the appellants are not entitled to any bonus for the years 1964-65 to 1966-67.

2. By order dated October 17, 1967, the Central Government made a reference for adjudication of the disputes to the National Tribunal in the following manner:

"Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in respect of the establishments specified in Schedule I and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in schedule II hereto annexed and that the said dispute is of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute;

And, whereas the Central Government is of opinion that the dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal;

And, whereas the Central Government is of opinion that the said dispute is of such a nature thee the Hindustan Machine Toots at Pinjore and the Hindustan Machine Tools at Hyderabad are likely, to be interested in, OF affected by, such disputes;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7-11, and sub-ss. (1-A) and (5) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes a National Tribunal of Calcutta of which Shri S. XL Son shall be the presiding Officer, and refers the said disputes to the said National Tribunal for adjudication and includes in that reference, the Hindustan Machine Tools at Pinjore and the Hindustan Machine Tools at Hyderabad.

SCHELUDE I

(1) Hindustan Machine Tools, 1 Bangalore.

(2) Hindustan Machine Tool II, Bangalore.

(3) Hindustan Machine Tools IV, Kalamassery, Kerala

SCHEDULE II

(1) Whether the demand of the workmen in the Hindustan Machine Tools I and II at Bangalore for payment of Bonus at the rate of 20 per cent. of their salary for the year 1966 67 is justified? If not, to what quantum of bonus are they entitled?

(2) Whether the workmen of the Hindustan Machine Tools at Kalamasseri, Pinjore, and Hyderabad are entitled to any bonus and if so, what should be quantum of such bonus?

(3) Whether the demand of the workmen of the Hindustan Machine Tools I and II of Bangalore and of the Hindustan Machine Tools E&1 at Kalamasseri that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of a consolidated Profit and Loss Account for all the units and all activities and not on the basis of profit and Loss Account of the separate units and separate activities is justified?"

3. Although in Schedule l of the order of reference only the units at Bangalore and Kalamassery were referred to, nevertheless, copies of the reference were sent by the Central Government to the Labour union of the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Unit No. III at Pinjore (Haryana State) and Unit No. V at Hyderabad as also to the H. M. T. Watch Factory at Bangalore. The unions representing the workmen of the five units as well as the Watch Factory had filed statements before the National Tribunal. The managements of these different Units had also filed statements opposing the claims of the Unions.

4. Before the proceedings commenced the National Tribunal appears to have felt certain difficulties regarding the scope of the reference. In respect of item 1 of Schedule II, the Tribunal felt a doubt whether it should also consider the question of bonus for any other year in respect of Units I and II at Bangalore. Similarly the Tribunal felt a doubt as to what was the particular year for which the claim for bonus is to be considered under item 2 of Schedule II. This doubt arose because no year had been mentioned in the reference under this item. For the purpose of getting clarification, the Tribunal invited the views of all the unions as well as the management. AU parties agreed that when the refere























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top