MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN:THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by :

(2.) THESE three appeals arise out of two industrial disputes Nos. 24 and 26 of 1951 between the appellants and their workmen. Dispute No. 24 of 1951 had arisen between the management and workers of the Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai, whereas dispute No. 26 of 1951, was between the management and workers of the Thiakesar Alai Manapparai. Both the disputes were in respect of bonus claimed by the workmen for the year 1950- 51. The workmen claimed bonus for the year 1950-51 on the allegation that the two mills constituted one unit and had made profits during the relevant year. On the other hand, the appellants contended that the two mills were two different units and the claims for bonus made by the workmen against themshould not be considered together. According to the appellants, during the relevant year there was a trading loss and as such no bonus was payable to the workers. The Industrial tribunal rejected the pleas raised by the appellants and held that the two mills formed part of the same unit. It also came to the conclusion that for the year in question there was a surplus of Rs. 2,87,676.00 against which the workmen's claim for bonus was justified. That is why the tribunal awarded three months' bonus to the workmen.

(3.) THE true nature and character of the workmen's claim for bonus againsttheir employers is now well settled. Bonus is not, as its etymological meaning would suggest, a mere matter of bounty gratuitously made by the employer to his employees ; nor is it a matter of deferred wages. It has been held by this court in Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur (1) that ' the term 'bonus' is applied to a cash payment made in addition to wages. It generally represents the cash incentive given conditionally on certain standards of attendance and efficiency being attained.' This decision is based on the view that both labour and capital contribute to the earnings of the industrial concern and so it is but fair that labour should derive some benefit if there is surplus available for that purpose. Even go, the claim for bonus cannot be effectively made unless two conditions are satisfied; the wages paid to workmen fall short of what can be properly described as living wages; and the industry must be shown to have made profits which are partly the result of the contribution made by the workmen in increasing production.