HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SINHA, J.
Burma Shell Oil Strorage Distributing
Versus
Labour Appellate Tribunal
Civil Rule No.3024 of 1953
Decided On : 15-06-1954
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - BONUS - RETROSPECTIVE BONUS - POWER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) ACT, 1950, SS. 9(1), 10 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, SS. 107, 114, O. 47, R. 1 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, S. 11, R. 20 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) ACT, 1950, R. 23.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., had a dispute with its clerical employees regarding the payment of bonus for the years 1947 and 1948. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim for retrospective bonus, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the award. However, the Appellate Tribunal later realized that it had made a mistake of fact and proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the company had paid Puja Bonus for years 1947-48 in cash.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Tribunal had the power to review its own judgment and put the matter right. The court reasoned that S. 9(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, which grants the Appellate Tribunal the same powers as a civil court when hearing an appeal under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, includes the power to review a judgment under S. 114 of the Code and O. 47, R. 1. The court also noted that R. 23 of the rules framed under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, allows the Tribunal to correct any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in any order it makes.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had the power to review its own judgment. 2. Whether the error made by the Appellate Tribunal was an error on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Appellate Tribunal had the power to review its own judgment because S. 9(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, grants the Appellate Tribunal the same powers as a civil court when hearing an appeal under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which includes the power to review a judgment under S. 114 of the Code and O. 47, R. 1. 2. The court held that the error made by the Appellate Tribunal was an error on the face of the record because it was a mistake of fact that was apparent from the record itself.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the Appellate Tribunal had the power to review its own judgment.
2. With effect from 1-1-1947, the Company introduced a non-contributory pension scheme, by virtue of which the retiring clerical employees received substantial pensions in addition to the amounts standing to their credit in the provident fund accounts. The Company, however, discontinued the crediting of bonuses to the provident fund accounts, inasmuch as the pensions were found to be a greater and more valuable benefit than the bonuses previously paid. In other words, from 1947 onwards the clerical employees enjoyed the benefits of pension but no bonus.
In March 1949, the clerical employees, through their trade union, the opposite party No.3 (hereinafter called the Association) made a demand for bonus. As the company did not concede this demand there developed an industrial dispute, which was, by an order of reference dated 19-8-1949, referred for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Tribunal was constituted by Sri Asutosh Das Gupta. In their statement of case filed before the Tribunal, the employees claimed payment by way of bonus, retrospectively from 1947. On 2-2-1950, Sri Das Gupta made his Award. On the point of bonus he gave the following directions :
"I accordingly direct that the Company shall pay each and every clerk one-twelfth of his basic yearly earning as bonus, provided the trade conditions do not substantially deteriorate from the present position. This payment shall be made a fortnight before the Puja."
3. This direction has correctly been construed as meaning that the Tribunal rejected the claim for retrospective bonus for 1947. That this was an acknowledged fact appears from the minutes of a meeting held jointly between the company and its employees on 23-3-1950. The relevant part may be quoted hereunder :
"Bonus.
The Association stated that although under the Award no bonus was payable in respect of any year prior to 1949 (the first bonus being payable a fortnight before the Puja in 1950) they would request the company to pay an extra bonus for 1947 and 1948. The company regretted their inability to deviate from the Award and confirmed that bonus in respect of 1949 would be paid a fortnight before the Puja in 1950 as laid down in the Award."
In fact, payment was accepted in terms thereof. In July 1951, the employees through the Association made fresh demands which repeated the claim for bonus for 1947-48 and additional bonus for 1949 and 1950.
4. By an order of reference dated 17-4-1952, the Government of West Bengal referred the disputes for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal consisting of Sri P.R. Mukherjee. The disputes that were referred were :
1. Bonus for the years 1947 and 1948.
2. Claim for additional bonus for 1950.
The reason why the employees were re-agitating the question of bonus since 1947 was that, subsequent to the adjudication by Sri Das Gupta, bonuses for that period seem to have been awarded in the case of similar industrial disputes in Bombay and Madras. Sri Mukherjee inter alia stated as follows :
"The main pillar of argument on the part of the employees is that the sister companies like Standard Vacuum, Caltex and other branches of Burma Shell at Madras and Bombay are paying higher bonus and this should be a standard on which the bonus at Calcutta branch should be bro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.