http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BAIDYANATH AYURVEDA BHAWAN MAZDOOR UNION, PATNA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANAGEMENT OF SHRI BAIDYANATH AYURVEDA BHAWAN PVT. LTD. &ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/11/1983

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DESAI, D.A. MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR  457            1984 SCR  (1) 927  1984 SCC  (1) 279        1983 SCALE  (2)814

ACT:      Payment of Bonus Act 1965      Act whether  exhaustive on  the law  relating to bonus- ‘Attendance bonus’ being paid prior to Act-Employees whether entitled to  ‘attendance bonus’  over and above profit bonus payable under the Act.

HEADNOTE:      The workmen  working in  the establishment of the first respondent were  being paid ‘attendance bonus’. The question whether the  workmen were entitled to payment of bonus under the  Payment   of  Bonus  Act,  1965,  over  and  above  the ‘attendance  bonus’   was  referred  to  adjudication  under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Tribunal held in  favour of  the workmen.  Before the  High Court the employer contended  that when bonus was being paid under the Act the  workmen were  not entitled  to separate ‘attendance bonus’. The  High Court,  relying on  the decision  of  this Court in  Sanghi Jeevaraj  Ghewar Chand & Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Chillies,  Grains Kirana  Merchants Workers’  Union & Anr. (1969)  1 S.C.R.  366 held  that the  workmen were  not entitled to payment of ‘attendance bonus’.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD:  1.   Both  the   Tribunal  and  the  High  Court concurrently held  that the workmen in the establishment had been receiving  ‘attendance bonus’  from before. ‘Attendance bonus’ being  outside the purview of the Bonus Act, the High Court was  not right  in vacating the award of the Tribunal. [928 E-F, 931 A]      2. In  Ghewar Chand’s  case on  which  the  High  Court relied, the  question was  not whether  after the  Bonus Act came into  force, the  other types  of bonus  hitherto  paid caused to  be payable. This question was directly considered in Mumbai  Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai  & Ors.(1976) 3  SCR 591  and  held  that  the  Act  leaves untouched customary bonus. [929 A-B, 930 H]      3. In  the  instant  case,  if  the  employer  had  not challenged the  award the workmen would have had the benefit of the  bonus more  than a  decade back.  That justifies the awarding of interest at 9% per annum. [931 B-C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

928

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1851 of 1974.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  24th October,  1973 of  the Patna  High Court  in C.W.J.C. No. 613 of 1970.      R.K. Garg and V.J. Francis for the Appellant.      L.C. Goyal for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA,  J. This  appeal by  special leave  is directed against  the  decision  of  the  Patna  High  Court quashing an  award of  the Industrial  Tribunal of  Bihar in exercise  of   jurisdiction  under   Article  227   of   the Constitution and the workmen’s union has carried the appeal.      Two  disputes   were  referred  to  adjudication  under section 10  of the Industrial Disputes Act but the appeal is confined  to  only  one,  viz.,  "whether  the  workmen  are entitled to  payment of bonus for the year 1966-67 under the Payment of  Bonus Act  over and above the ‘attendance bonus’ which is  being paid  in this  establishment?  If  so,  what should be the quantum of bonus?" The Tribunal found that the workmen were entitled to attendance bonus over and above the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (‘Act for short), and  specified the  amount  as  required  under  the reference. The employer challenged the Award before the High Court and  contended that  no separate  attendance bonus was payable when  bonus was being paid under the Act. A Division Bench of  the High  Court came  to hold, concurring with the Tribunal, that  the workmen  in the  establishment had  been receiving attendance  bonus from  before  and  proceeded  to examine whether  such attendance  bonus was  included in the bonus payable  to the  workmen under  the Act  or  could  be claimed over  and above  the statutory bonus. Relying on the observations of this Court in Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand & Ors. v.  Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana Merchants Worker’s Union  & Anr.(1),  the Court came to the conclusion that the  workmen were not entitled to payment of attendance bonus for  the year  1966-67  and  accordingly  vacated  the Award. 929      In Ghewar  Chand’s case  (supra) as rightly observed by the High  Court  the  question  for  consideration  was  not whether after  the Act  came into  force and statutory bonus became payable, other types of bonus hitherto paid ceased to be payable. On the other hand, in a later case Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors.(2). this Court considered  the question directly. The later case also referred to Ghewar Chand’s case and ultimately held:           "It is  clear further  from the  long title of the      Bonus Act of 1965 that it seeks to provide for bonus to      persons employed ‘in certain establishments’ not in all      establishments.  Moreover,  customary  bonus  does  not      require  calculation  of  profits,  available  surplus,      because it  is a  payment founded  on  long  usage  and      justified often  by spending  on festivals  and the Act      gives no guidance to fix the quantum of festival bonus;      nor does it expressly wish such a usage. The conclusion      seems to  be fairly  clear, unless  we strain  judicial      sympathy contrariwise,  that the  Bonus Act  dealt with      only profit  bonus and  matters connected therewith and      did not  govern customary,  traditional or  contractual

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    bonus." Referring to  Ghewar Chand’s  case, Krishna Iyer, J. in this latter case indicated :           "...so  viewed,   we  are   able  to   discern  no      impediment in  reading  Ghewar  Chand  as  confined  to      profit-bonus, leaving  room for  non-statutory play  of      customary bonus.  The case  dealt with a bonus claim by      two sets  of workmen,  based on  profit of the business      but  the   workmen  fell   outside  the  ambit  of  the      legislation by  express exclusion or exemption. Nothing      relating to any other type of bonus arose and cannot be      impliedly held  to have  been  decided.  The  governing      principle we  have  to  appreciate  as  a  key  to  the      understanding of  Ghewar Chand  is that it relates to a      case  of   profit  bonus  urged  under  the  Industrial      Disputes Act  by  two  sets  of  workmen,  employed  by      establishments which  are either  excluded or  exempted      from the Bonus Act. The major 930      inarticulate premise  of the  statute is  that it deals      with-and  only  with-profit-based  bonus  as  has  been      explained  at   some  length   earlier.  There   is  no      categorical provision  in the  Bonus Act nullifying all      other kinds  of bonus, nor does such a conclusion arise      by necessary  implication, The  ruling undoubtedly lays      down the law thus:                ‘Considering the  history of the legislation,           the background  and the circumstances in which the           Act was  enacted, the  object of  the Act  and its           scheme,  it   is  not   possible  to   accept  the           construction   suggested    on   behalf   of   the           respondents that  the Act is not an exhaustive Act           dealing comprehensively with the subject-matter of           bonus in  all its aspects or that Parliament still           left it  open to  those to  whom the  Act does not           apply by  reason of  its provisions  either as  to           exclusion or  exemption to  raise a  dispute  with           regard to  bonus through  industrial  adjudication           under  the   Industrial  Disputes   Act  or  other           corresponding law’.      But this  statement, contextually construed, means that      profit-bonus not founded on the provisions of the Bonus      Act and by resort to an adventure in industrial dispute      under  the   Industrial  Disputes   Act  is  no  longer      permissible. When  Parliament has expressly excluded or      exempted certain  categories from  the Bonus  Act, they      are  bowled   out  so  far  as  profit-based  bonus  is      concerned.  You  cannot  resurrect  profit-bonus  by  a      backdoor method,  viz., resort  to the machinery of the      Industrial Disputes Act."      Upon a  further analysis  of Ghewar Chand’s case. Iyer, J. concluded by saying:           "A discerning  and concrete analysis of the scheme      of the  Act and the reasoning of the Court leaves us in      no doubt that it leaves untouched customary bonus."      We concur with this conclusion. 931      On the  finding by  the Tribunal as also the High Court that attendance  bonus was  being paid  from before  and  it being outside the purview of the Act, the High Court was not right in  vacating the   Award.  The appeal must succeed and the award  on this score has to be restored. If the employer had not challenged the Award, the workmen would have had the benefit of the bonus more than a decade back. That justifies awarding of  interest. While  allowing  the  appeal  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

workmen with  costs, we  direct that the amount found by the Tribunal for  being given  as attendance  bonus shall  carry interest at  the rate of 9% per annum from the due date till disbursement. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 2,000. N.V.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 932