The statutory right to bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, should not be forfeited due to misconduct in a specific accounting year, and the interpretation of Section 9 should align with the Act's object and purpose.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE Labour Court rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that a specific plea was not taken in the statement of objections filed by it on the maintainability of the claim for bonus by respondents Nos. 2 to 16 (workmen ). The petitioner has taken a specific contention in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections as follows :

"the applicants are not entitled to any bonus as they were dismissed for serious act of misconduct involving moral turpitude, violent and destructive acts causing loss and damage to the respondent. The applicants are disqualified from claiming bonus. Thereby, the applicants have forfeited their claims for bonus as per the provisions of law. "

Though the petitioner had not mentioned the specific section under which it was resisting the claim for bonus, the pleadings in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections leave no doubt that it was with reference to S. 9 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (the Act ).

( 3 ) EVEN then, the point for consideration would be whether, under S. 9 of the Act, it was open to the petitioner-management to forfeit the amount of bonus to the workmen on the ground that they were dismissed from service for serious acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude, etc. , as pleaded in paragraph 5 of the objection statement. It is not in dispute that these workmen were dismissed from service of the petitioner without holding an enquiry obviously because the petitioner was of the view that it was not feasible to hold an enquiry into the serious acts of misconduct committed by the workmen and, therefore, it had preferred to prove the case against the workmen by adducing fresh evidence before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, this court has to proceed on the basis that the acts alleged aginst the workmen which resulted in their dismissal were subject to proof and a finding of the Labour Court thereon that the workmen deserved the extreme penalty of dismissal for the alleged misconduct committed by them. But that would not in any way preclude this Court from interpreting the provisions of S. 9 of the Act since the question relating to bonus will come up for consideration before the Labour Court or before the management immediately after an award is made by the Labour Court one way or the other. If the workmen are not found guilty of the alleged misconduct, they will automatically be entitled to bonus which was due to them in the accounting year in which the alleged misconduct was committee. If they are found guilty of the misconduct alleged against them and if the order of dismissal made by the petitioner-management is sustained by the Labour Court, the point for consideration would be whether the management could forfeit only the amount of bonus which became due to the workmen during the accounting year in which the alleged misconduct was committed or is it open to the management to withhold the aggregate of the bonus not paid to the workmen even for the years preceding the accounting year. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Wheel and Rim Company of India Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, [1977-II L. L. J. 299]. The Learned Judge held that on the plain language of S. 9 of the Act, which is in contra-distinction to the language in S. 18 of the Act, the workmen are liable to lose their claim for the aggregate amount of bonus due to them if they are dismissed from service for any misconduct mentioned in S. 9 of the Act. The reasoning of the learned Judge in his elaborate judgment is found in the paragraph of the judgment at 306. They are :

". Use of the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act', in S. 9. Use of the expression 'disqualified from receiving bonus under this Act. '. Absence of any reference to any particular accounting year in vivid contrast with the use of clear expression in S. 18 providing for deduction of the amount of the loss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document