9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Entitlement and quantum of bonus for workmen for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. 2. Determination of the party liable to pay the bonus: the contractor or the company. 3. Appropriateness of the Government's order in not referring the question of liability to the Industrial Tribunal. Detailed Analysis Entitlement and Quantum of Bonus The primary issue revolves around the entitlement and quantum of bonus for 16,000 workmen for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The Industrial Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the workers were entitled to any bonus and, if so, the quantum of such bonus. The contract between the company and the contractor did not explicitly mention bonus payments, leading to a dispute about who should bear this cost. Determination of the Party Liable to Pay the Bonus The contract stipulated that all payments related to wages, salaries, and other connected payments for workmen were to be borne by the company. This included payments for sickness, accident, provident fund, pension, overtime, and other remuneration. The contractor was to be paid a fixed fee and overheads for professional services. The question arose as to who should pay the bonus if it was found to be payable to the workmen. The contractor argued that the company should bear this cost since the company was responsible for all labor-related expenses under the contract. Appropriateness of the Government's Order The Government of Orissa initially referred only the issue of entitlement and quantum of bonus to the Industrial Tribunal, without addressing who was liable to pay the bonus. The contractor filed an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, requesting the inclusion of the company as a party to the proceedings. This application was rejected, and the contractor's subsequent petition to the High Court was also dismissed. The Supreme Court noted that the Government had not applied its mind to the relevant facts and had failed to consider the unique nature of the contract, which was not a typical contractor agreement but a cost contract where the company bore all labor costs. Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the Government's order was unsustainable as it amounted to an outright refusal to consider relevant matters and misdirected itself in law by omitting relevant considerations. The Court directed the Government of Orissa to reconsider the matter and take a decision on the reference in light of the relevant facts, emphasizing that the company should be made a party to the proceedings to address the issue of liability for bonus payments. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
