The Payment of Bonus Act is a special Act dealing with a special subject and creates a special forum for the trial of disputes under the Act. Therefore, the Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act.

Headnote:
PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT - JURISDICTION - PAYMENT OF WAGES AUTHORITY - DISPUTE REGARDING BONUS - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - EXEMPTION - INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT - BONUS ACT IS A SPECIAL ACT - DISPUTE REGARDING BONUS IS AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - PAYMENT OF WAGES AUTHORITY HAS NO JURISDICTION - EMPLOYERS ARE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 32(IV) OF THE BONUS ACT.
Fact of the Case:

Two special civil applications were filed raising common questions of law of some importance regarding jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act and the Payment of Bonus Act. The main argument was advanced in Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1968. The petitioner was the manager of the India United Mills Ltd., No. 1 Mill, of Bombay, which was taken under the management of an authorised controller under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. On 21st December, 1967 an employee of the mill applied before the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act for the payment of the minimum bonus payable to him under the provisions of Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act. The petitioner contended that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to pass any orders with reference to the alleged bonus claimed, that the adjudication of the claim of the workers to the payments under the Bonus Act would involve or give rise to difficult and complicated questions of law which the Payment of Wages Authority should not undertake to decide, and that in any case Section 22 of the Bonus Act itself excludes the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority because it has created a special forum before which claims under the Bonus Act can be tried namely the Industrial Court. The facts relating to Special Civil Application No. 1909 of 1968 were somewhat similar. The petitioner was the general manager of the Pratap Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. of Amalner in Jalgaon District. The authorised controller was appointed to manage this mill by a notification dated 4th March 1963. On 26th December 1967 the workers of this mill put in a claim for the payment of the minimum bonus payable under the Act through the Union. In both the cases the mills which were taken under the management of the authorised controller put in their written statements raising several preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority and denying the claim of the workers to the payment of bonus. The authorities turned down these preliminary objections and ordered the amounts claimed by the workmen to be paid in both the cases.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to try the dispute raised in these cases. The court held that the Payment of Bonus Act is a special Act dealing with a special subject and creates a special forum for the trial of disputes under the Act. The court also held that the employers were exempt under Section 32(iv) of the Bonus Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act? 2. Whether the employers are exempt under Section 32(iv) of the Bonus Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act because: a. Section 22 of the Bonus Act creates a special forum for the trial of disputes under the Act. b. The dispute raised in the present case is a dispute with respect to the bonus payable under the Act and therefore falls within the ambit of Section 22. c. The Payment of Wages Authority is not competent to try complicated questions of law and fact, which are likely to arise in the present case. 2. The court held that the employers are exempt under Section 32(iv) of the Bonus Act because: a. The establishments of the employers are engaged in an industry carried on under the authority of a department of the Central Government. b. The notifications issued under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 have the effect of taking over the entire management of the undertakings of the employers and vesting it in the authorised controllers. c. The authorised controllers are bound to comply with all the directions issued to them from time to time by the Central Government.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority.

judgment-

Kotval, C.J.

1. These two special civil applications raise common questions of law of some importance and may be conveniently disposed of together. We are concerned in both these applications with orders passed by the Payment of Wages authority regarding the remuneration payable under the recently enacted Payment of Bonus Act (21 of 1965) which came into force on the 25th of September 1965. The principal points raised are regarding jurisdiction viz. whether the remuneration payable under the Act can be claimed before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and whether the petitioner Companies are exempt under the Bonus Act. For the purpose of the points raised the facts are also somewhat similar. The orders impugned however have been passed by two different authorities under the Payment of Wages Act.

2. The main argument was advanced in Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1968 and we would first set forth briefly the facts of that Special Civil Application. The petitioner before us is the manager of the India United Mills Ltd., No. 1 Mill, of Bombay, which we shall hereafter refer to for the sake of brevity as the Indu Mills as it is popularly known. On 29th November 1965 the Indu Mills was taken under the management of an authorised controller under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 by a notification of the Government of India. One M.D. Bhat was appointed as the authorised controller. We shall refer to the detailed provisions of this notification a little later. On 21st December, 1967 the 1st respondent Dhondu Mahadeo Ghadi an employee of the Indu Mills applied before the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act for the area of Greater Bombay for the payment to him of the minimum bonus payable to him under the provisions of Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act. He claimed to be entitled to receive Rs. 76.40 and Rs. 101.68 as bonus for the years 1965 and 1966. Though the amount claimed by this particular employee is small, the petitioner before us has averred that upon the decision of this matter further claims by the other employees of the mills are likely to be made and that even if only the minimum bonus is payable to all the employees of the mills it will entail an amount of over Rs. 20 lakhs for the two years 1965 and 1966 although the company has suffered net losses of Rs. 1.75 crores and Rs. 1.83 crores in the said two years.

3. The facts relating to Special Civil Application No. 1909 of 1968 are somewhat similar. There we are concerned with the Pratap Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. of Amalner in Jalgaon District. The petitioner before us is D.P. Kelkar its general manager. The authorised controller was appointed to manage this mill by a notification dated 4th March 1963. He was one S.A. Kher. The initial appointment was for a period of 5 years but the management of the authorised controller has been continued from year to year and counsel informed us that the mill is still under the management and control of the authorised controller. The respondent No. 1 before us are the officials of the Rastriya Mill Workers Union of Amalner who claim to represent not only the 1st respondent Ambadas but also 773 other workers of this mill. On 26th December 1967 these workers put in a claim for the payment of the minimum bonus payable under the Act through the Union. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,20,312. The application was filed before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the Amalner Taluka area at Amalner.

4. In both the cases the mills which were taken under the management of the authorised controller put in their written statements raising several preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority and denying the claim of the workers to the payment of bonus. The arguments before us have more or less reiterated these objections in a more sophisticated form and we would therefore briefly set forth the arguments:--

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis