High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ.
SADASHIV ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., PITHAMPUR – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. Nos. 4401 and 4617 of 2022
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Payment of Bonus Act - Dispute over bonus payment - Sections 4, 8, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23 - The court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision to award a bonus of 13% to the workers based on the evidence and profit and loss statement of the Company.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Company engaged in manufacturing and sale of auto parts, was in a dispute with a trade union over the payment of bonus for the year 2017-18. The Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay a bonus of 13% to the workers, which led to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's decision to award a bonus of 13% was based on the evidence and profit and loss statement of the Company, and therefore, upheld the decision.
Issues: Dispute over bonus payment, evidence presented by the petitioner, interpretation of the Payment of Bonus Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and profit and loss statement of the Company, as per the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the order passed by the Court in the present case governed the connected petition as well.
ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present case, with the consent of the parties, these petitions are finally heard and decided by a common order. Facts of W. P. No. 4401 of 2022 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 14-10-2019 passed by the Labour Commissioner in Case No. 708/7/Teen/2019/48768-74 and order dated 10-1-2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (pronounced on 25-1-2022) in Reference No. 16/ID/19.
2. The facts of these cases in short are as under : –
2.1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of small auto parts and auto components which are used by EICHER Motor and Force Motors. Respondent No. 2 is a registered trade union and the members of the Union are working in the plant of the petitioner.
2.2. Respondent No. 2 raised a dispute about the payment of bonus for the year, 2017-18 @ 20% of their wages. A demand letter dated 11-9-2019 was submitted before respondent No. 1. The petitioner was called upon by a Labour Officer, Pithampur to supply the balance sheet and form No. A, B and D for the year, 2017-18 for the purpose of conciliation between them. The petitioner appeared and produced the aforesaid balance sheets and forms and submitted that the bonus @ 8.33% has already been paid to the members of the Union, hence, claim of 20% is not tenable. Since no settlement arrived, the conciliation proceedings ended into failure and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication on the following terms of reference : –
2.3. The aforesaid reference was registered as Reference No. 16/ID/19 and the parties were directed to submit the statement of claims and written statement. Respondent No. 2 submitted a claim and the petitioner/Company submitted a reply and issues were framed. All the parties have examined their witnesses and after evaluating the evidence and material that came on record vide award dated 25-1-2022, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim by directing the petitioner/Company to pay bonus @ 13% to all the workmen/members of respondent No. 2, hence, the present writ petition is before this Court.
3. Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 claimed a bonus of 20% before the Labour Commissioner as well as before the Industrial Tribunal but they have not filed any evidence in support of the claim. The learned Tribunal has arbitrarily directed the petitioner/Company to pay a bonus of 13% without appreciating the evidence. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on the basis of profit and loss of the Company, bonus for the year, 2017-18 @ 8.33% had already been paid to all the workers. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that section 23 of the Payment of Bonus Act gives presumption about the accuracy of audited balance sheets and profits and loss accounts of the Company. The petitioner has filed account books, profit and loss statement duly certified by the Chartered Accountant in which the profit for the year 2017-18 was declared and on the basis of which bonus @ 8.33% has rightly been paid to the workmen, therefore, without any basis and material, bonus @ 13% has been awarded which is per se illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 enacted by the Central Government in order to provide rights of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments on the basis of profit or on the basis of production activities. Section 4 of the Act provides for the computation of gross profits derived from establishment in respect of each accounting year.
6. Section 8 of the Act provides for eligibility criteria for bonus and accordi
The court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision to award a bonus of 13% to the workers based on the evidence and profit and loss statement of the Company, in accordance with the provisions of the....
Service matter - Appointment of an assessor - Labour Court /tribunal has power to appoint an assessor in terms of Section 11(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 11-A(4) of the Industr....
Bonus must be paid based on individual unit profits unless a consolidated profit basis is established, as per the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate bonus claims under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, as they are not covered by the Second Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The workmen are not entitled to a share in the bonus under the terms of the agreements entered into by the appellants with the Government and they are also not entitled to claim incentive bonus de ho....
Payment of Bonus – Workmen of Union are liable to receive their bonus under Payment of Bonus Act – Paying some amount as ex-gratia, as a measure of charity to workmen, is not a ground to avoid paying....
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.