1976 (3) TMI 237 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Industrial Tribunal to entertain the dispute.
2. Whether the claim for bonus for the years 1966-69 was barred by res judicata.
3. Existence of customary bonus or bonus as a condition of service.
4. Applicability of the Bonus Act to customary or service-condition-based bonus claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Industrial Tribunal to entertain the dispute:
The Tribunal's competence to entertain the dispute was questioned, but this contention was found to be devoid of merit. The provisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, along with the relevant schedules, clearly indicate that the industrial dispute falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal's error in this regard was deemed palpable, and the appeal was allowed to proceed on this ground.

2. Whether the claim for bonus for the years 1966-69 was barred by res judicata:
The Tribunal initially dismissed the claim for bonus on the ground that it was barred by res judicata, based on an arbitral board's decision in 1965. However, this was challenged by the Union, which argued that the previous decision did not cover the current claim for customary bonus. The Court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the earlier arbitration dealt with profit-based bonus, whereas the current claim was for customary bonus. The Tribunal's dismissal on this ground was therefore overturned.

3. Existence of customary bonus or bonus as a condition of service:
The Court examined whether there existed a customary bonus or bonus as a condition of service. It was argued that the hardware merchants of Nag Devi had been making ex gratia payments for several years, which had ripened into a customary right in the consciousness of the workers. The Court recognized that customary bonus could be claimed based on long, unbroken, and consistent payments, even if these payments were initially ex gratia. The Court also noted that the Bonus Act did not extinguish claims for customary bonus or bonus as a condition of service, as these were distinct from profit-based bonuses covered by the Act.

4. Applicability of the Bonus Act to customary or service-condition-based bonus claims:
The Court analyzed whether the Bonus Act, which primarily deals with profit-based bonuses, barred claims for other types of bonuses. The Court concluded that the Bonus Act was not a complete code that extinguished all other forms of bonus. Customary bonuses, which are based on long-standing practices and conditions of service, were not covered by the Act and could still be claimed. The Court distinguished between profit-based bonuses, which the Act comprehensively regulated, and other types of bonuses, which were not within the Act's purview.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the dispute on its merits, considering the existence of customary bonus or bonus as a condition of service. The Court held that the Bonus Act did not bar claims for customary bonus, and the plea of res judicata was not applicable in this case.