K.N.WANCHOO, - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THESE are two appeals by special leave against the same decision of the Labour Appellate tribunal of India in a dispute between Messrs. Shalimar Works Ltd., Howrah (hereinafter called the company) and its workmen represented by two unions (hereinafter called the workmen). Appeal No. 317 is by the company while appeal No. 318 is by the workmen. We shall dispose them of by one judgment. There was a dispute between the company and its workmen on a number of matters and it was referred to the Sixth Industrial tribunal for adjudication by the government of West Bengal. Only two matters now survive out of the many referred to the tribunal, namely, (1) profit sharing bonus and (2) reinstatement of 250 old workmen. We shall first deal with the question of profit sharing bonus. It appears that the company had a profit sharing bonus scheme in force on the following lines. It provided that after making certain deductions, if the remaining profit was between Rs. 1,50,000.00 and Rs. 1,99,999.00, the workmen would be entitled to quarter of a month's average basic pay as bonus, When the remaining profit was between Rs. 2.00 lakhs and Rs. 2,49,999.00, the bonus went up to half of a month's average basic pay. When the remaining profit was between Rs. 2,50,000.00 and Rs. 2,99,999.00, the bonus was to be three quarters of a month's average basic pay and when the remaining profit was Rs. 3 lacs or more the bonus was to equal one month's basic pay. No bonus was to be paid if the profit was less than Rs. 1,50,000.00. There were provisions that the full bonus would be paid to a workmen who had attended 275 days in a year (inclusive of holidays and leave with pay) while those with less attendance were to be paid proportionately with the condition that if the attendance of any workman was less than 100 days he would be entitled to no bonus. The workmen wanted this scheme to be revised and the main revision they desired was that the bonus should begin with a profit of Rs. 25,000.00 after the usual deductions when it would be one week's wages and should go on increasing till it came to three months' wages for profit above Rs. 1 lakh and upto Rs. 3 lakhs; thereafter it should increase further at the rate of 21 days' wages for each lakh over 3 lakhs. This was opposed by the company, though the company agreed to a change in the quantum of bonus when profit after deductions was Rs. 3 lakhs or above. In the scheme in force, the bonus was equal to one month's basic pay when the profit was Rs. 3 lakhs or above, with no further increase whatsoever be the profits. The company agreed to revise this term and suggested that when profit was- (i)between Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs, bonus should be four weeks' wages; (ii) above Rs. 4 lakhs upto Rs. 5 lakhs, bonus should be five weeks' wages. (iii)above Rs. 5 lakhs, it should be six weeks'wages The Industrial tribunal did not accept fully the contentions of either party in this connection, though it varied the scheme in force in certain particulars. After the variation the scheme was as below JUDGEMENT_1217_AIR(SC)_1959Html1.htm The Industrial tribunal also accepted 275 days' attendance for earning full bonus and proportionate bonus when the attendance fell below 275 days and the minimum of 100 days' attendance for earning any bonus at all. It also held that bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should be paid at the existing rates while revised rates should be applied from the year 1953 onwards.
(3.) BOTH parties appealed to the Labour Appellate tribunal against this revision. The company contended that no greater revision than what it had agreed to should have been ordered. In the workmen's appeal it was contended that the scheme put forward on their behalf should have been accepted. They further contended that the condition of minimum attendance for 100 days should not have been laid down and that the bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should have been awarded at the revised rates. The Appellate tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the award of the Industrial tribunal in this respect and dismissed the appeals with one modification,, namely, it added that if in any year it was found that the bonus worked out according to the award of the Industrial tribunal was less than profit bonus, calculated according to the full bench formula evolved in the Mill Owners' Association, Bombay v. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay (1), the workmen would be entitled to bonus under the formula; otherwise they would get bonus under the scheme as modified by the Industrial tribunal., In the appeals before us, the company has attacked the revision ordered by the Industrial tribunal, which was upheld by the Appellate tribunal, as also the condition added by the latter; while the workmen have attacked the scale fixed by the Industrial tribunal as also the order of payment of bonus for the years 1951 and 1952, according to the scheme in force before the revision by the Industrial tribunal, and the conditions as to attendance. Learned counsel for the parties, however, agreed before us that the revision made by the Industrial tribunal was acceptable to both the parties and that the condition laid down by the Appellate tribunal that where the bonus according to the scheme is less than the bonus worked out according to the full bench formula that formula should be applied, should be deleted. In view of this agreed statement, we delete the condition laid down by the Appellate tribunal and order that bonus should be paid in accordance with the scheme as revised by the Industrial tribunal. Learned counsel for the workmen, however, urged that the condition as to minimum attendance of 100 days for entitlement to any bonus at all and of minimum attendance of 275 days for entitlement to full bonus was arbitrary and should be set aside. This condition has been accepted by both the tribunals and appears reasonable and we see no reason to interfere. It was further contended that bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should have been ordered to be paid according to the revised scheme. This contention was also negatived by the two tribunals and we see no reason to differ from them. The two appeals therefore with respect to bonus are dismissed subject to the modification given above. ;