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

PETITIONER: M/S.  BURN & CO.  LTD. & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR EMPLOYEES.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/1960

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. GUPTA, K.C. DAS

CITATION:  1960 AIR  896            1960 SCR  (3) 423  CITATOR INFO :  F          1963 SC 325  (20,21,22)  F          1964 SC 472  (3)  RF         1972 SC2148  (22)  RF         1975 SC1114  (3)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Incentive  bonus--Scheme--Exclusion   of clerical   and   subordinate   staff--Propriety--Power    of Industrial Tribunal.

HEADNOTE: There  can be no doubt from the point of view  of  Economics that the clerical and subordinate staff of an industry  like its  manual workers contribute to its production  and  there can, therefore, be no reason for excluding them wholly  from the benefits of a scheme of incentive bonus.  The fact  that the  clerical staff are paid dearness allowance at a  higher scale can be no reason for their exclusion. (1)[1956] 30 I.T.R. 388 424 Where,  as  in  the instant case, the  company  had  already Introduced  a scheme of incentive bonus for the majority  of its  workmen,  there could be no reason why  the  Industrial Tribunal  should  not be able to extend that scheme  to  the clerical and subordinate staff. M/s.  Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1012, considered.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 195 and 196 of 1959. Appeals  by  special leave from the Award  dated  April  15, 1957, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-7 of 1956. B.   Sen,  P.  K.  Chakravarty  and B.  N.  Ghosh,  for  the appellants (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and respondents (in C.   A. No. 196 of 59). N.   C.  Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and B.  P.  Maheshwari, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and  appellants

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

(in C. A. No. 196 of 59). 1960.  March 30.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO,  J.-These are two appeals by special leave  against the same award of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and  shall be disposed of by this judgment.  Appeal No.  195 is by Messrs.  Burn and Co. Limited (hereinafter called  the company)  and  Appeal No. 196 is by the workmen  of  Messrs. Burn  and  Co.  Limited (hereinafter  called  the  workmen). There  were disputes between the company and the workmen  on various  matters,  which were referred to the  tribunal  for adjudication.   Of these disputes, only two now  survive  in the  two appeals.  The company’s appeal is with  respect  to that  part of the award which deals with incentive bonus  to the  clerical  and  subordinate staff  while  the  workmen’s appeal  is  with  respect to that part of  the  award  which appeals  with the cash benefit of Annas eight per  head  per working day for the period the canteen was not in operation. We  shall first take up the company’s appeal.   The  company has introduced incentive bonus for manual workers  including Sarkars and Checkers but there is no provision for incentive bonus  to the clerical and subordinate staff.   The  workmen therefore  claimed that these two categories should also  be given  incentive bonus like the manual workers  and  pointed out 425 that in other concerns this was done.  The company  resisted the  claim on two grounds: (i) that the clerical  staff  got what  is  known as the Bengal Chamber of  Commerce  dearness allowance, which is higher than, the dearness allowance paid to  the manual workers and (ii) that the clerical staff  and the  subordinate staff do not actually produce anything  and if  they  are given incentive bonus it will mean  that  they would  be  paid on the ’production of  others,  namely,  the manual workers. The  tribunal was of the view that the fact that the  clerks got the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance was no reason  for  their total exclusion from the benefit  of  the incentive  bonus  scheme.   It also  pointed  out  that  the subordinate staff did not get the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance and there was no difference between their dearness allowance and the dearness allowance of the  manual workers.   Further  the tribunal was conscious of  the  fact that  the  clerical staff and the subordinate staff  do  not directly  produce  goods  but that in  its  opinion  was  no justification  for their total exclusion, particularly  when other comparable concerns like the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.  at  Burnpur,  Bridge and  Roof  Co.  (India)  Limited, Howrah,  and  Tatas  were  paying  incentive  bonus  to  the clerical  and subordinate staff also.  It therefore  ordered that the company should extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff also and lay down  the rates and conditions for the same. The main contention of the company before us is that as  the clerical  staff  and the subordinate staff have no  part  in actual  production  they should not be given  any  incentive bonus,  particularly as their work does not increase at  all because  of  the  increased  production.   It  is,  however, difficult  to accept that there will be no increase  in  the work  of  the clerical staff in particular and also  of  the subordinate  staff because of higher production,  though  it may  be accepted that the increase may not be in  proportion to  the  increase of production.  It is also true  that  the clerical  staff  and the subordinate staff do  not  directly produce goods like manual workers and that may be a reason 426

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

for  treating  them somewhat differently in  the  matter  of incentive bonus and that is what the tribunal seems to  have done,  for it has directed the company to extend the  scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff and to lay down the rates and conditions of the same and has not said  that  exactly  the same rates  and  conditions  should apply, to the clerical and subordinate staff as apply to the manual workers.  But there can be no doubt that economically speaking  the clerical staff and the subordinate staff  also take part in the production and there is no reason therefore for  excluding them altogether from the scheme of  incentive bonus.   Besides, as the tribunal has pointed out, in  other comparable  concerns  incentive bonus is being paid  to  the clerical  and  subordinate staff.  The  fact  that  dearness allowance  was paid to the clerical staff at a higher  scale is  also,  in  our opinion, no  reason  for  depriving  them altogether of the benefits of the incentive bonus scheme. It  is  also  urged  on  behalf  of  the  company  that  the introduction of incentive bonus is a management function and the  tribunal  should not impose it on  the  management  and reference  in  this  connection has  been  made  to  Messrs. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1).  In  the present  case,  however,  the  incentive  bonus  scheme  has already been introduced by the company for the major part of its  workmen  and  all that is now asked  for  is  that  the benefit of the scheme should be extended to the remainder of the workmen.  This prayer is, in our opinion, very different from  asking a tribunal to impose an incentive bonus  scheme for  the first time in a concern.  We can see no reason  why where  an incentive bonus is in force in a concern  for  the majority of its workmen, the tribunal should not be able  to extend the same to the remainder of the workmen. We  therefore see no reason to interfere with the  order  of the tribunal in this behalf Turning  now  to the appeal of the workmen with  respect  to eight  annas tiffin allowance during the period the  canteen was  riot working, it is enough to say that this matter  was examined at length by the (1)  [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1012. 427 tribunal.   It has dealt with the history relating  to  this tiffin allowance and exhaustively considered all the  points raised  on behalf of the workmen.  Nothing has been  brought to  our notice which would induce us to interfere  with  the considered  order of the tribunal in this behalf.   All  the points  that  Sri  Chatterjee has raised on  behalf  of  the workmen  have  been  dealt  with by  the  tribunal  and  the conclusion  it  has reached is that halving  regard  to  the circumstances,  the workmen were not eligible to the  tiffin allowance of annas eight per head per working day.  All that we  need say is that the correspondence between the  workmen and  the company shows that though the workmen were keen  on the  provision of a canteen before the tiffin allowance  was granted  by  the award dated July 24, 1953,  their  keenness disappeared  after  the award.  The company  seems  to  have taken  steps  even before the award to start a  canteen  and pursued  the  matter  vigorously after the  award;  but  the workmen started objecting to the arrangements made and  some of the objections were fantastic.  It seems that having been given the tiffin allowance they preferred to have it  rather than go to the canteen.  In the circumstances we are of opi- nion  that  the conclusion of the tribunal  is  correct  and there is no reason for interference. The  appeals are hereby dismissed, but in the  circumstances we pass no order as to costs.

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

Appeals dismissed.