9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, specifically regarding the legality of customary bonus u/s the amending Act 23 of 1976.
Summary: The Supreme Court examined the appellant-management's challenge to the award of the Industrial Tribunal regarding the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, as amended by Act 23 of 1976, focusing on the issue of whether the amendment annulled customary and contractual bonuses. The dispute centered around the denial of customary bonus claimed by the workmen, with the Tribunal's decision and subsequent appeal revolving solely around customary bonus. The Court emphasized that the Bonus Act primarily dealt with profit-oriented bonuses and did not govern customary, traditional, or contractual bonuses. The Court concurred with the view that the Act left customary bonus untouched. The appellant's argument that the 1976 amendment nullified all bonus claims except profit or productivity-based bonuses was refuted based on the legislative intent and the specific provisions of the Act. The Court analyzed the amendments brought about by Act 23 of 1976, noting that the new long title of the Bonus Act specified payment of bonus based on profits, production, or productivity, excluding customary or contractual bonuses. The Court highlighted that Section 17 of the Act distinguished between bonus payable under the Act and customary bonuses, indicating that customary bonuses were not covered by the amended Act. The appellant's reliance on Section 31A was dismissed, as it pertained to productivity bonuses and did not affect other types of bonuses like customary bonuses. The Court concluded that statutory and customary bonuses operated in separate spheres and did not conflict with each other. Ultimately, the Court held that the appeal challenging the legality of customary bonus under the 1976 amendment Act must fail, as the claim was rooted in custom but quantified by contract, and the Act did not impede customary bonuses. While costs could have been awarded to the respondent workmen, the Court, noting the respondent's attitude during the proceedings, dismissed the appeal, directing each party to bear their respective costs.
|
