Hardayal Hardy, CJ. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1694 of 1967 whereby the award made by the Labour Court on 15-7-1967 was confirmed by the learned Judge.

( 2 ) SOME of the facts leading to this appeal were no doubt disputed by the parties but as the questions arising for determination in this appeal are based on un-disputed facts, we shall set out only those facts as to which the parties are in agreement.

( 3 ) THE appellant. National Tin Manufacturing Company, is an establishment which is engaged in the manufacturing of tins and is registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. In March 1966 there were only six employees on its roll. The accounting year of the firm is April 1964 to March 1965.

( 4 ) IN March 1966, Mohd. Arfin, who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and was an employee of the firm, filed a claim that due to accident he had l een permanently disabled and should be paid compensation for disablement. He was accordingly paid Rs. 866. 00 by an order of the Commissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923. Shri Mohd. Arfin was meanwhile given one month s notice of termination of his services on 15-3-1966.

( 5 ) THE services of Mohd. Unis and Jalil Ahmed who were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 were terminated with effect from 15-4-1966 by giving them one month s notice under Section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establisnments Act. These notices too were served on them on 15-3-1966.

( 6 ) ON September 19, 1966 Delhi Administration REFERRED TO the disputes regarding payment of bonus and termination of services of these three employees to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court these employees were represented by the Engineering Employees Union.

( 7 ) THE parties closed their evidence and the Labour Court gave an award inter alia allowing the three employees bonus for one month. The employees we"e also ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages

( 8 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the award made by the Labour Court filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and has now led to the filing of the present appeal.

( 9 ) TWO questions have been raised on behalf of the appellant on both of which the learned Single Judge has repelled the objections filed by the appellant. The first question relates to the payment of bonus, while the second question relates to re-instatement of the respondents with full back wages. It may be mentioned here that in the appeal before us the question of re-instatement of Jalil Ahmed was not raised and the controversy was confined to the other two employees Mohd. Arfin and Mohd. Unis.

( 10 ) IN regard to the first question it was common ground that the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 did not apply to the establishment of the appellant as the number of persons employed by it was only six. The Labour Court also did not hold that the claim for bonus was admissible under the provisions of the said Act. Learned Single Judge however relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand and others v. Secretary Madras Chillies Grains and Kirana Merchants

( 11 ) WORKERS Union and another (1969 (2) Labour and Industrial Cases 854c) and held that even though the Bonus Act of 1965 did not apply to the establishment, a dispute with regard to bonus for the period ending on March 31, 1965 could nevertheless be raised through industrial adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. In that connection the learned Judge REFERRED TO to what was generally known as "full Bench Formula" and observed that according to that formula the surplus available for distribution was determined after debiting certain prior charges from gross profits. viz. (1) Provision for depreciation, (2) reservation for rehabilitation, and (4) return on working capital at a rate lower than the one on the paid up capita

Click Here to Read the rest of this document