- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Baidyanath Ayurveda ... v. Management Of Shri B...
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute originated from two references made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The present appeal concerns only one of those references: whether the workmen of the establishment were entitled to receive an attendance bonus for the year 1966-67 in addition to the statutory bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Industrial Tribunal of Bihar held that the attendance bonus was a separate, customary payment and directed the employer to pay it over and above the statutory bonus, quantifying the amount accordingly.
The employer challenged the Tribunal’s Award before the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that no separate attendance bonus was payable once the statutory bonus under the 1965 Act had been paid. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted this contention and set aside the Tribunal’s decision, relying primarily on this Court’s earlier judgment in Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand.
The workmen’s union obtained special-leave and filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking restoration of the Tribunal’s Award.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, despite the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the workmen were entitled to a separate attendance bonus for the year 1966-67 that had traditionally been paid in the establishment.
- If such entitlement exists, what is the appropriate quantum of the attendance bonus payable?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Workmen’s Union)
- The attendance bonus had been paid in the establishment prior to the enactment of the Payment of Bonus Act and was therefore a customary bonus unaffected by the statute.
- The Tribunal correctly treated attendance bonus as distinct from profit-based statutory bonus and quantified it accordingly.
Respondent (Employer)
- Once bonus is paid under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, no separate attendance bonus is payable.
- The Tribunal erred in granting an additional bonus, and the High Court rightly set aside that portion of the Award.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana Merchants Workers’ Union, AIR 1969 SC 530 | The Payment of Bonus Act is exhaustive with respect to profit-based bonus; profit-bonus disputes cannot be raised through industrial adjudication once excluded or exempted by the Act. | The High Court relied on this case to deny attendance bonus. The Supreme Court analysed it and concluded that it dealt only with profit-bonus and did not rule out customary bonuses. |
| Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, (1976) 3 SCC 832 | Customary, traditional or contractual bonuses are outside the scope of the Payment of Bonus Act, which is confined to profit-based bonus. | The Supreme Court adopted this reasoning, confirming that attendance bonus—being customary—is not barred by the Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reviewed both precedents. It found that Ghewar Chand addressed only profit-based bonus claims and therefore could not be read as eliminating the right to non-profit, customary bonuses such as attendance bonus. Justice Krishna Iyer’s analysis in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha was cited with approval, emphasising that the Payment of Bonus Act “dealt with only profit bonus and matters connected therewith and did not govern customary, traditional or contractual bonus.”
Because both the Tribunal and the High Court had made a concurrent factual finding that an attendance bonus had historically been paid, the Court concluded that such payment lay “outside the purview of the Act” and remained payable. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to vacate the Award was legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Tribunal’s Award Restored.
The employer is directed to pay the quantified attendance bonus for 1966-67 together with interest at 9% per annum from the due date until disbursement. Costs are awarded to the workmen, with hearing fees assessed at Rs 2,000.
Implications: The judgment reaffirms that customary bonuses—such as attendance or festival bonuses—are not extinguished by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Employers remain liable for such payments where an established practice exists, and industrial adjudication may uphold them independently of statutory profit-bonus provisions.
Ranganath Misra, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Patna High Court quashing an Award of the Industrial Tribunal of Bihar in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and the workmen's union has carried the appeal.
2. Two disputes were referred to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act but the appeal is confined to only one viz. “whether the workmen are entitled to payment of bonus for the year 1966-67 under the Payment of Bonus Act over and above the ‘attendance bonus’ which is being paid in this establishment? If so, what should be the quantum of bonus?” The Tribunal found that the workmen were entitled to attendance bonus over and above the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (‘Act’ for short), and specified the amount as required under the reference. The employer challenged the Award before the High Court and contended that no separate attendance bonus was payable when bonus was being paid under the Act. A Division Bench of the High Court came to hold, concurring with the Tribunal, that the workmen in the establishment had been receiving attendance bonus from before and proceeded to examine whether such attendance bonus was included in the bonus payable to the workmen under the Act or could be claimed over and above the statutory bonus. Relying on the observations of this Court in Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana Merchants Workers' Union AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854, the Court came to the conclusion that the workmen were not entitled to payment of attendance bonus for the year 1966-67 and accordingly vacated the Award.
3. In Ghewar Chand case AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854 as rightly observed by the High Court the question for consideration was not whether after the Act came into force and statutory bonus became payable, other types of bonus hitherto paid ceased to be payable. On the other hand, in a later case Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976) 3 SCC 832, (1976) 3 SCR 591, 1976 Lab IC 1012, (1976) 49 FJR 15 this Court considered the question directly. The latter case also referred to Ghewar Chand case AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854 and ultimately held:
“It is clear further from the long title of the Bonus Act of 1965 that it seeks to provide for bonus to persons employed ‘in certain establishments’ — not in all establishments. Moreover, customary bonus does not require calculation of profits, available surplus, because it is a payment founded on long usage and justified often by spending on festivals and the Act gives no guidance to fix the quantum of festival bonus; nor does it expressly wish such a usage. The conclusion seems to be fairly clear, unless we strain judicial sympathy contrarywise, that the Bonus Act dealt with only profit bonus and matters connected therewith and did not govern customary, traditional or contractual bonus.”
Referring to Ghewar Chand case AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854, Krishna Iyer, J. in this latter case indicated:
“. . ., so viewed, we are able to discern no impediment in reading Ghewar Chand AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854 as confined to profit-bonus, leaving room for non-statutory play of customary bonus. The case dealt with a bonus claim by two sets of workmen, based on profit of the business but the workmen fell outside the ambit of the legislation by express exclusion or exemption. Nothing relating to any other type of bonus arose and cannot be impliedly held to have been decided. The governing principle we have to appreciate as a key to the understanding of Ghewar Chand AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854 is that it relates to a case of profit bonus urged under the Industrial Disputes Act by two sets of workmen, employed by establishments which are either excluded or exempted from the Bonus Act. The major inarticulate premise of the statute is that it deals with — and only with — profit-based bonus as has been explained at some length earlier. There is no categorical provision in the Bonus Act nullifying all other kinds of bonus, nor does such a conclusion arise by necessary implication. The ruling undoubtedly lays down the law thus:
Considering the history of the legislation, the background and the circumstances in which the Act was enacted, the object of the Act and its scheme, it is not possible to accept the construction suggested on behalf of the respondents that the Act is not an exhaustive Act dealing comprehensively with the subject-matter of bonus in all its aspects or that Parliament still left it open to those to whom the Act does not apply by reason of its provisions either as to exclusion or exemption to raise a dispute with regard to bonus through industrial adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act or other corresponding law.
But this statement, contextually construed, means that profit-bonus not founded on the provisions of the Bonus Act and by resort to an adventure in industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act is no longer permissible. When Parliament has expressly excluded or exempted certain categories from the Bonus Act, they are bowled out so far as profit-based bonus is concerned. You cannot resurrect profit-bonus by a backdoor method, viz. resort to the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act. . . .”
4. Upon a further analysis of Ghewar Chand case AIR 1969 SC 530, (1969) 1 SCR 366, (1969) 35 FJR 162, (1969) 1 LLJ 719, 1969 Lab IC 854 Krishna Iyer, J. concluded by saying:
“A discerning and concrete analysis of the scheme of the Act and the reasoning of the Court leaves us in no doubt that it leaves untouched customary bonus.”
5. We concur with this conclusion.
6. On the finding by the Tribunal as also the High Court that attendance bonus was being paid from before and it being outside the purview of the Act, the High Court was not right in vacating the Award. The appeal must succeed and the Award on this score has to be restored. If the employer had not challenged the Award, the workmen would have had the benefit of the bonus more than a decade back. That justifies awarding of interest. While allowing the appeal of the workmen with costs, we direct that the amount found by the Tribunal for being given as attendance bonus shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the due date till disbursement. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs 2000.
Alert