2007 (4) TMI 607 - SC - Indian Laws

Claim of Bonus - Employer and workmen. As far back in the year 1983, the appellant terminated the services of 37 workmen allegedly on the ground that they had gone on an illegal strike. It gave rise to an industrial dispute.

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of workmen and subsequent industrial dispute.
2. Claim for back wages and bonus under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Definition and inclusion of 'bonus' in 'wages' under various statutes.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Labour Commissioner and interpretation of awards.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of Workmen and Subsequent Industrial Dispute:
The relationship between the parties was that of employer and workmen. In 1983, the appellant terminated the services of 37 workmen allegedly for going on an illegal strike, resulting in an industrial dispute. The management and 19 workmen entered into a compromise, one workman died, leaving 17 claims for adjudication. By an award dated 26.05.1993, the industrial court directed the employer to reinstate the 17 workers and pay 50% back wages from 1-8-87 till the date of joining. The award attained finality as the writ petition and Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant were dismissed.

2. Claim for Back Wages and Bonus Under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
On 2.08.1994, an application was filed under Section 6-H(1) of the Act claiming back wages and bonus totaling Rs. 20,70,020.44. The Additional Labour Commissioner issued a recovery certificate for Rs. 17,61,755.18, excluding the bonus. A review application reduced the claim to Rs. 5,31,030.90, which was complied with. Subsequently, another application was filed claiming bonus for 1987 to 1996, which the appellant objected to, arguing that the bonus does not fall under 'wages' as defined in Section 2(y) of the Act and was not included in the original award.

3. Definition and Inclusion of 'Bonus' in 'Wages' Under Various Statutes:
The definition of 'wages' under Section 2(y) of the Act explicitly excludes bonus. Similarly, Section 2(21) of the Payment of Bonus Act and Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act exclude bonus from the definition of wages. The Labour Commissioner, however, held that bonus is deferred wages and included it in the term 'wages and allowances' used in the award. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this interpretation, stating that the Labour Court's award intended to include all benefits that similarly situated workers received.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Labour Commissioner and Interpretation of Awards:
The Labour Commissioner is not a judicial authority and cannot determine complicated legal questions or disputes regarding the existence of legal rights. Section 6-H(1) is an execution provision and cannot be used to raise new industrial disputes. The Labour Court's award did not explicitly include bonus, and the definition of 'wages' under the Act does not encompass bonus. Therefore, the Labour Commissioner erred in directing the payment of bonus as deferred wages. The High Court also misdirected itself by not addressing the correct legal questions and misinterpreting the statutory definitions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Labour Commissioner and the High Court erred in including bonus as part of 'wages' under the award. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The claim for bonus under Section 6-H(1) was not maintainable as it was an independent claim that should have been raised as an industrial dispute. The definition of 'wages' under the relevant statutes does not include bonus, and the Labour Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in directing its payment.

← Previous Next →