9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of item 5 of schedule II of the notification dated January 5, 1952. 2. Interpretation of section 10 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (prior to its amendment by Act 95 of 1956). 3. Whether an industrial tribunal can compel banks to disclose "secret reserves" and "other necessary provisions." 4. Applicability of the Full Bench formula laid down by the Labour Appellate Tribunal for the payment of bonus to employees in the textile industry to banks. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of Item 5 of Schedule II of the Notification Dated January 5, 1952: The primary question was whether item 5, which referred to "Bonus, including the qualifications for eligibility and method of payment," included the determination of the quantum of bonus payable for specific years. The Sastry Tribunal concluded that item 5 did not contemplate determining the quantum of bonus for specific years but was a general reference to the eligibility and method of payment. The Labour Appellate Tribunal, however, interpreted item 5 to include claims for bonus for the relevant years. The Supreme Court held that item 5 did not include claims for specific years, aligning with the Sastry Tribunal's interpretation. The Court emphasized that the item was intended to address general issues of bonus eligibility and payment methods, not specific claims for particular years. 2. Interpretation of Section 10 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949: The second issue was whether section 10 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, prohibited the grant of bonus to bank employees. The Sastry Tribunal had doubts and recommended legislative clarification, while the Labour Appellate Tribunal by a majority concluded that section 10 did not bar bonus claims. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Labour Appellate Tribunal, holding that section 10, which prohibited the employment of any person whose remuneration included a share in the profits, applied to bonus as well. The Court interpreted "remuneration" in its widest sense, including bonus, and concluded that bonus constituted a share in the profits, thus falling within the prohibition of section 10. 3. Disclosure of "Secret Reserves" and "Other Necessary Provisions": The third issue was whether an industrial tribunal could compel banks to disclose "secret reserves" and "other necessary provisions." The Supreme Court decided not to address this issue at the current stage, as it was not necessary for the resolution of the appeals. The Court noted that no evidence was allowed regarding claims for specific years, and the dispute was treated as a general question of bonus. 4. Applicability of the Full Bench Formula to Banks: The fourth issue was whether the Full Bench formula for bonus payment in the textile industry applied to banks. The Supreme Court chose not to decide this issue, emphasizing that it was exercising appellate jurisdiction and not advisory jurisdiction. The Court stated that it would be inappropriate to decide hypothetical questions without concrete cases and necessary materials. Preliminary Objection in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1957: A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competence of the appeal, arguing that the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was not an enforceable award and the appeal was premature. The Supreme Court overruled this objection, stating that the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was indeed an "award" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the appeals were not premature or incompetent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the reference of 1952 was not pending for determining the quantum of bonus for specific years, and section 10 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, prior to its amendment in 1956, prohibited the grant of industrial bonus to bank employees. The other two issues were not decided at this stage, and the appeals were allowed in part, with no direction as to costs.
|
