Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.M.Panchal
PROJECT MANAGER ONGC LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SHAM KUMAR SEHGAL - Respondent
S.C.A. 2779 of 1980
Decided On : 06/21/1994
The fact that the Court directed the petitioner to pay full backwages for the period of suspension indicates that the action of the petitioner in suspending deceased employee from service was illegal and not justified at all. Even otherwise, the misconduct proved against deceased employee was not serious one and having regard to the facts of the case, the disciplinary authority had thought it fit to impose penalty of only stoppage of one increment with future effect. In view of the misconduct held to have been proved against deceased employee, his suspension was not justified at all and the said action was totally illegal. The deceased employee was prevented from rendering work in the establishment by an overt act of the petitioner. But for the suspension order, normal circumstances would have prevailed and he would have worked so as to be eligible for claiming bonus. The order passed by the petitioner itself also makes it very clear that the period of suspension of the deceased employee was to be taken into consideration for continuity of his services. The fact that the deceased employee was ready and willing to perform his work is apparent as he resumed duty on April 7, 1978 pursuant to the order dated April 6, 1978 issued by the petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be said that though the deceased employee was deemed to have been in service pursuant to the reinstatement, he could not be deemed to have put in the attendance required by the relevant statutory provisions to claim the bonus.
[Para 11]
Labour law - Wages - Bonus - Meaning - Bonus is the difference between the actual wage and the living wage.
It is well settled that the payment of bonus is not the product of generosity of the employer but is one paid in the name of industrial peace and to make available to every employee a living wage which more often is more than the actual wage. It is thus, the difference between the actual wage and the living wage which is ascertained on the basis of available material, such as available surplus, industrywise wages or regionwise wages and various other aspects connected with bonus and organisations. Bonus itself being a payment made by an employer to an employee to maintain industrial harmony and to give a fillip to the employees to exert their utmost to keep up the industry active and aloft, such involuntary stepping down from work by an employee cannot be termed or equated to non-working of the employee in the establishment. It is only in the wake of such a clear, undisturbed and normal atmosphere that the formula of eligibility prescribed in Section 8 has to be worked and understood. In this sense, if everything is normal, the worker to sustain a case for bonus or to be eligible for it, should work in the establishment for not less than 30 working days in that year. But in abnormal circumstances wherein he is prevented from working by an overt act on the part of the employer which is ultimately set aside and the employee is reinstated in service, then the reasonable inference is that the employees statutory eligibility for bonus within the meaning of Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 cannot be said to have been lost. Nor can the employer refuse to accede to a demand for such bonus if it is otherwise payable under the provisions of the Act.
[Paras 8 & 9]
Words & Phrase - Work - Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Sec. 8 - Should mean ready and willing to work.
The word worked in Section 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, having regard to the historic background already referred to, should mean ready and willing to work. Such working should not be understood with reference to the dictionary meaning of the word and the eligibility understood in the abstract.
[Para 9]
( 1 ) BY means of this petition which is filed under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated April 23, 1980 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Central), ahmedabad in Recovery Application (LCA) No. 197 of 1979 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,448. 78 ps. to deceased Sham Kumar Sehgal and issuing necessary certificate for recovery of the said amount. Deceased Sham Kumar Sehgal was employed as an Assistant Grade (I) (R) with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC for short ). It was the case of the ONGC that, while functioning as Junior Assistant, Technical and Purchase section, ONGC, Cambay, late Mr. Sham Kumar Sehgal committed misconduct. The ONGC, therefore, initiated disciplinary action against him under Regulation 25 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) regulations, 1964. During the pendency of departmental proceedings, he was placed under suspension in October, 1963. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in Special Civil Application Nos. 166 of 1976 and 722 of 1978, the Inquiry officer completed the inquiry and recorded his findings on September 2, 1978. The Disciplinary Authority held that, late Mr. Sehgal was guilty of charge 2 (i) mentioned in charge-sheet and awarded penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The Disciplinary Authority also directed that the period of suspension would not be counted as on duty for any purpose except for continuity of service. The deceased respondent was served with the order of reinstatement on april 6, 1978 and immediately, on the next day, i. e. , on April 7, 1978, he resumed his duties.
( 2 ) THE deceased respondent submitted an application under Sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of bonus amount due from the petitioner to him. In the said application, it was contended by the respondent that, though he was ready and willing to serve he was not allowed to do so by the petitioner and therefore, he was entitled to receive bonus for the disputed period. By filing the said application, the deceased respondent claimed a total amount of Rs. 6,448. 78 ps. being the amount of bonus which he was entitled to receive for the years 1966- 67 to 1976-77.
( 3 ) ON being served in the recovery application, the petitioner contested the said application by filing written statement at Exh. 2. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that the deceased respondent was under suspension during the relevant period and had not rendered any service to the ONGC, and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the amount of bonus from the petitioner. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that deceased employee had not worked in the establishment for 30 working days during the relevant period and as he was not eligible for bonus in view of the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the application deserved to be dismissed.
( 4 ) THE deceased employee examined himself at Exh. 3 in respect of his claim made in the recovery application. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Central), Ahmedabad came to the conclusion, that pursuant to the directions given by this Court, deceased employee was paid full wages as if he was in service and though he was ready and willing to work, he was prevented from discharging duties and so it cannot be said that the deceased employee did not work in the establishment of the petitioner for a period of 30 days during the period in question. In view of the said conclusion, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Central), Ahmedabad, vide order dated April 23, 1980 allowed the recovery application filed by the deceased employee and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,448. 78 ps. to him. As noted earlier, the legality and valid
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.