The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is not a complete Code for bonus payable under the said Act and an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable for claiming minimum bonus payable under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

Headnote:
PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 22 - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 33-C(2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - BONUS ACT IS A COMPLETE CODE FOR BONUS PAYABLE UNDER THE ACT - MAINTAINABILITY OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 33-C(2) FOR CLAIMING MINIMUM BONUS PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE BONUS ACT.
Fact of the Case:

The employees (respondents Nos. 13 to 17 to the appeal) applied under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) for computation of claims for minimum bonus payable under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (Bonus Act). The claim was resisted by the company inter alia on the ground that (i) being an establishment newly set it was exempted from the liability of payment of statutory minimum bonus for the relevant period under section 16 of the Bonus Act, (ii) proceedings under section 33-C(2) were not tenable.
Finding of the Court:

The Labour Court Nagpur held that (i) employees worked for requisite number of days during the relevant period. (ii) the establishment was not newly set up and hence there was no exemption and profit making in view of Explanation to section 16 was an irrelevant factor and (iii) application under section 33-C(2) was maintainable. Labour Court awarded to each of the employees a sum of Rs. 360/- towards a claim for minimum bonus for the period 1970-71 to 1974-75.
Issues: 1. What is the ambit and scope of section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965? 2. Whether the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is a complete Code for bonus payable under the said Act? If the answer is in affirmative, whether an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable for claiming minimum bonus payable under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 22 of the Bonus Act is not exhaustive of all disputes. For excepting the view point canvassed on behalf of the employees, the scheme of the Bonus Act is general and section 39 in particular will either have to be ignored or considered as redundant. This will be against well known cannons of construction of statutes. 2. Scope and ambit of section 33-C(2) is wide. This provision contains legislative recognition of the right of individual workmen to a speedy remedy to enforce his existing individual right without having to seek recourse to the time consuming process under section 10 of the ID Act of without having recourse to depend on the Trade Union to espouse his cause. 3. The liability of the employer to pay bonus is declared by a statutory provision contained in section 10. What is more, it has also quantitied the liability. In this case the establishment in not exempt (section 16), the employees are eligible (section 8), and they are not governed by section 32. Now, in a situation like this all that the Labour Court is called upon to do is to calculate the statutory liability against the employer. 4. The plain language of the statute supports the view canvassed by the employees. No doubt even in respect of a claim for bonus there can be many complicated controversies which cannot be summarily tried in a limited jurisdiction of section 33-C(2) and need adjudication as contemplated under section 22 of the Bonus Act. It is an enabling provision and the parties if they so choose may have their claims adjudicated as industrial dispute, but that does not mean that the additional summary remedy saved under section 39 of the Bonus Act is taken away by reason of section 22 of the Bonus Act.
Final Decision: 1. Every dispute relating to minimum bonus payable under section 10 of the Bonus Act does not fall within the ambit and scope of section 22, and depending upon what the actual contraversy is between the parties, proceedings for its recovery under section 33-C(2) are maintainable. 2. Bonus Act is compete Code so far as the right to bonus is concerned. It is not a complete Code as far as the remedies are concerned. Application under section 33-C(2) of the ID Act for claiming minimum bonus under section 10 of the Bonus act is maintainable under the given circumstances.

JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---(1) What is the ambit and scope of section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?

2. Whether the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is a complete Code for bonus payable under the said Act? If the answer is in affirmative, whether an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable for claiming minimum bonus payable under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?

These two questions need determination by this Full Bench. The reference is made by a Division Bench of this Court in a Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1982 arising out of Writ Petition No. 667 of 1980. Following is the relevant backdrop.

2. Sometime in 1977, the employees (respondents Nos. 13 to 17 to the appeal) applied under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) for computation of claims for minimum bonus payable under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ("Bonus Act"). Though initially the claim covered period commencing from 1964-65 to 1974-75, it came to be restricted to period commencing from 1st November, 1970. The claim is against an old well known Bidi Industry, the management of which has been changing hands. Previously it was with a partnership firm "Mohanlal Hargovindas". A Private Limited Company "Mohanlal Hargovinddas Tabacco Products Private Limited" (the original petitioner) took it over the management from 1st November, 1970. During the pendency of this appeal it was taken over by "Koh-I-Noor Tabacco Products Pvt. Ltd." All the employees are quite old whose services are not affected by the changes in management. Some of them are in employment since 1960. The claim was resisted by the company inter alia on the ground that (i) being an establishment newly set it was exempted from the liability of payment of statutory minimum bonus for the relevant period under section 16 of the Bonus Act, (ii) proceedings under section 33-C(2) were not tenable. After enquiry and on certain disputed positions, the Labour Court Nagpur held that (i) employees worked for requisite number of days during the relevant period. (ii) the establishment was not newly set up and merely management had changed and hence there was no exemption and profit making in view of Explanation to section 16 was an irrelevant factor and (iii) application under section 33-C(2) was maintainable. Labour Court awarded to each of the employees a sum of Rs. 360/- towards a claim for minimum bonus for the period 1970-71 to 1974-75. This order was challenged in High Court in writ jurisdiction. A Single Bench heard this petition along with three other petitions involving some common points. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 29th April, 1982 which led to filing of this letters patent appeal. During the course of hearing of the appeal before the Division Bench, it was pointed out that with reference to the scope of section 22 of the Bonus Act, two other different Division Benches of this Court haven taken divergent views and it was requested that the controversy should be set at rest by reference to a larger Bench. Those two decisions are (M/s. Allahabad Labour Supply Agency, Nagpur v. First Labour Court, Nagpur and others)1, 1970 Mh.L.J. 9 (D.P. Kelkar, Amalner v. Ambadas Keshav Bajaj and others)2, A.I.R. 1971 Bom. 124. Attention of the Bench was also drawn to the divergence of views on the question prevailing in different other High Courts and so also to the Supreme Court decision in the case of (State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur)3, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1981 wherein it is held that the Payment of Gratuity Act ("Gratuity Act") being a complete Code, claim for gratuity under that Act cannot be entertained under section 33-C(2). Impact of that decision on the Bonus Act, it was argued, also needed examination. Under the circumstance and in view of the general importance of the questions involved, the Appeal Court was pleased to make this reference.

3. It is a common ground before us that a case coming un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document