SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Del) 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
Appellants: Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal No. III and Anr.
W.P. (C) No. 7338/2002
Decided On: 12.01.2011

Advocates:
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: Rajat Arora and Jagat Arora, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: D.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. and N.A. Sebastian, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the minimum wage is a figure to be taken as a whole and cannot be split up for bonus calculation under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

Headnote:

Bonus Calculation - Payment of Bonus Act - 2(21), Minimum Wages Act - 2(h) - The court discussed the definition of 'salary or wage' under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It highlighted the exclusion of certain allowances and the concept of minimum wages as a whole figure that cannot be split up for bonus calculation. The court emphasized the purpose of the legislation and the intention of the legislature in enacting the Payment of Bonus Act, and referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petition challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal regarding the entitlement of workmen to payment of bonus on the entire amount of wages or wages minus the house rent allowance. The issue for determination was the definition of 'salary or wages' for the purpose of bonus payment under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the minimum wage is a figure to be taken as a whole and cannot be split up for bonus calculation. It dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the basic minimum wages should not be split up and that the petitioner's contention was misconceived.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of 'salary or wages' for bonus calculation under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and its relation to the minimum wages defined under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, emphasizing the concept of minimum wages as a whole figure that cannot be split up for bonus calculation.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The interim orders were vacated.

JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the award dated 16.9.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal answering the reference as to whether the workmen are entitled to payment of bonus on the entire amount of wages or bonus has to be calculated on the wages minus the figure of house rent allowance. Though, this was only one of the issues in the case which was decided, however. I may note that other issues in this case were given up by the Petitioner vide order dated 7.5.2004.

2. Crystallizing the issue for determination by this Court, the question would be as to what would be the "salary or wages" for the purpose of payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

3. To understand the issues involved, it is necessary to refer to the definition of "salary or wages" under Section 2(21) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the said provision reads as under:

2(21)"salary or wage" means all remuneration (other than remuneration in respect of over-time work) capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to an employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments, by whatever name called, paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), but does not include-(i) any other allowance which the employee is for the time being entitled to;

(ii) the value of any house accommodation or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food grains or other articles;

(iii) any travelling concession;

(iv) any bonus (including incentive, production and attendance bonus);

(v) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the employee under any law for the time being in force;

(vi) any retrenchment compensation or any gratuity or other retirement benefit payable to the employee or any ex gratia payment made to him;

(vii) any commission payable to the employee.

4. It is also necessary to refer to the definition of wages under Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 inasmuch as the issue in the present case is intertwined with the fact that what the workmen are getting in the present case are only minimum wages which are treated as their salary or wages.

5. The contention as raised on behalf of the Petitioner by the learned Counsel is that in terms of Section 2(21)(ii) the value of a house accommodation is not included in the salary or wages of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hamdard Laboratories v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 281. As per paras 16 and 17 of the judgment in the case of Hamdard Laboratories (supra), the Supreme Court has said that the Courts while interpreting the provisions of statutes must interpret them in such a manner so as to give effect thereto keeping in mind that different statutes have different purposes to achieve. Counsel for the Petitioner also relies upon Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Scindia Employees Union 1983 Lab I.C. 759, wherein in para 39, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has laid down that the claim to profit based bonus must be based on the provisions of the Bonus Act.

6. In response, the learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 2/workman, Union has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Airfreight Ltd. v. State of Karnataka AIR 1999 SC 2459. The Supreme Court in the decision of Airfreight Ltd. (Supra) in paras 21 and 22 of the judgment has held that once minimum wages are fixed, it is one pay package which is not amenable to being split up, although, the minimum wages itself may be fixed on the basis of various ingredients one of which can be requirement of house rent. The learned senio












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top