Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Lahiri, Bachawat, J.
Workmen Of Kettle Well Bullen Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Kettlewell Bullen Co Ltd - Respondent
Decided on: Jun 23, 1960
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - BONUS - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - QUESTION WHETHER CERTAIN PERSONS ARE WORKMEN OF THE COMPANY - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT IN WRIT PROCEEDINGS - LIMITS OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose between Messrs. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Limited (the company) and their workmen over the payment of bonus for the year 1955. The company resisted the claim, leading to an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the dispute to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal awarded a bonus of three months' basic pay to the workmen, finding that there was sufficient surplus profit available for distribution after deducting prior charges. The Tribunal also found that all 163 employees working at the company's head office were its workmen and entitled to the bonus.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, on a writ petition filed by the company, quashed the Tribunal's award insofar as it decided that all 163 employees were the company's workmen, holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide this issue. The workmen appealed, and the company filed a cross-objection, contending that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to decide the issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether all the persons working at the company's head office were its workmen and entitled to the bonus. 2. Whether the High Court could interfere with the Tribunal's finding on this issue in writ proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether all the persons working at the company's head office were its workmen and entitled to the bonus. The reference of the dispute to the Tribunal by the State Government was general in the sense that all disputes relating to the bonus for 1955 were referred. The Tribunal was empowered to ask the parties to state their respective cases, and the statements filed crystallized all the disputes between the parties relating to the bonus. One of the disputes raised was whether all the persons working at the company's head office were its workmen and entitled to the bonus. This dispute was a dispute relating to the bonus for 1955 and the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate upon it. The company's objection that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide who its workmen were was not raised before the Tribunal and was therefore not entertainable in the writ proceedings. The dispute raised by the second issue was an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as bonus is a distinct head of industrial dispute mentioned in item No. 5 of the third schedule to the Act. The Tribunal could decide all incidental questions involved in the determination of the industrial dispute, including the question of whether the company employed certain persons. 2. The High Court could not interfere with the Tribunal's finding on the issue of whether all the persons working at the company's head office were its workmen in writ proceedings. The finding was a finding of fact, and the High Court had no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an error of fact even if it was apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the issue finally, and there was no right of appeal to the High Court. The High Court could not convert itself into a court of appeal and correct errors of fact, errors in the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inferences.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Rule obtained by the respondents on January 6, 1958, was discharged. The cross-objection was dismissed, and each party was directed to pay and bear its own costs both in the High Court and the Supreme Court.
1. THIS appeal and cross-objection arises out of an order passed by Sinha, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution. The litigation relates to an industrial dispute between Messrs. Kettlewell Bullen and Co, Limited and their workmen. The principal business of Messrs. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) is that of managing agents of other limited companies. The associated companies or concerns carry on business as manufacturers and sellers of jute-textiles, cotton textiles and tea. The company as also the associated concerns have their registered and principal offices at premises No. 21 Strand Road in the town of Calcutta. The company maintains a clerical and subordinate staff at its office at No. 21 Strand Road.
2. THE workmen of the company claimed payment of bonus for the year 1955 on the ground that the company made huge profits in 1955. This claim was resisted by the company. An industrial dispute accordingly arose between the company and their workmen. By order dated 9th April, 1957 the State Government acting under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute relating to "bonus for 1955" existing between the company and its workmen represented by the Kettlewell Bullen Employees' Union to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. By another order dated 5th June, 1957, the State Government corrected its previous order and stated that the workmen were represented in the dispute by the National Union of Commercial Employees also. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal the parties filed their respective statements. The Kettlewell Bullen Employees' Union claimed a bonus amounting to three months' basic pay. The National Union of Commercial Employees claimed a bonus amounting to five months' wages inclusive of dearness allowance. Both the Unions claimed that all the 163 employees working at the head office of the company at premises. No. 21 Strand Road and named in Ext. 4 were the workmen of the company. The company disputed the claim for bonus as also the claim that all the employees working at No. 21 Strand Road were entitled to payment of bonus out of the profits of the company. The company maintained that only 84 persons named in Ext. 5 were its workmen and that the remaining 79 of the 163 persons named in Ext. 4 were the employees of the associated concerns of which the company was the managing agent. The company submitted that the claim for bonus by those 79 persons should be rejected. The company stated that the claim of bonus of individual employees should be determined on the basis of the profits made by the different concerns employing them and that as some of the managed concerns did not make any profits during the relevant year the claim of their respective employees could not be entertained. The company submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant bonus to a person working at 21 Strand Road who was not an employee of the company.
Oral and documentary evidence were adduced by the parties before the Tribunal. The Tribunal made its award on the 26th September, 1957. By its award the Tribunal pointed out that having regard to the defence of the company two issues arose, namely, (i) whether the employees of the company were entitled to any bonus for 1955 and (ii) whether all the employees employed at 21, Strand Road were the employees of the company.
3. ON the first issue the Tribunal found that there was sufficient surplus profit for 1955 available for distribution as bonus after deducting the prior charges allowable under the Full Bench formula. It was not disputed on behalf of the company that the existing rates of wages had not reached the ceiling of living wages. Considering all the attendant circumstances, the Tribunal awarded that the claim of three months' basic pay as bonus was reasonable and could be paid out of the surplus.
4. ON the second issue the Tribunal after meticulous and exhaustive consideration of the oral
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
