Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10A, 10(1)

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/18
Search in selected Domain
MANU/SC/0313/1976
Equivalent Citation: AIR1976SC1455, (1976)IILLJ186SC, (1976)3SCC832, [1976]3SCR591
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1971
Decided On: 10.03.1976
Appellant: The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay
Vs.
Respondents: Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:
N.L. Untwalia and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.M. Tarkunde. P.H. Parekh, H. K. Sowani, Manju Jetley, Advs
For Respondents/Defendant: G.B. Pai, Shri Narain, O.C. Mathur, J. B. Dandachanji, Advs.
Subject: Labour and Industrial
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10A, 10(1), 18 and 19(3); Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections
1(3), 2(21), 17, 32, 34, 35, 36(1) and 36(4); Payment of Wages Act - Section 15(2); Factories
Act; Bombay Shops and Establishments Act; Constitution of India - Articles 32, 39, 43 and 226;
Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975; Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948
Authorities Referred:
Black's Legal Dictionary
Prior History:
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated 14-7-71 of the Industrialo Tribunal Maharashtra
Bombay in Reference (I.T) No. 116 of 1970
1

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/18
Citing Reference:
Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd., Calcutta v. Mahalaxmi Cotton
Mills Workers' Union, Discussed
The Graham Trading Co. (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen MANU/SC/0138/1959 Discussed
Messrs. Ispahani Ltd. v. Ispahani Employees' Union, MANU/SC/0136/1959 Discussed
Case Note:
Labour and Industrial - bonus - Section 10 (1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
demand for bonus - matter referred to Tribunal under Section 10 (1) (d) and rejected -
nature of bonus (as in instant case) not covered by Act of 1965 - reference specifically spoke
of payment of such bonus by employers which had become 'custom or usage or condition of
service' in establishment - Tribunal bound to investigate said question and terms of
reference for being operational basis of its jurisdiction - claim of customary bonus cannot
be discarded merely because occasion for its announcement was not specified - in instant
case bonus was based on custom and service conditions and not on profit as required for
applicability of Act of 1965 - said Act therefore cannot be said to have barred different
species of claim merely for using word 'bonus' for such claims.
JUDGMENT
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
1. A narration of the skeletal facts, sufficient to get a hang of the four legal issues debated at the
bar in this appeal, by special leave, will help direct the discussion, along a disciplined course,
although the broader social arguments addressed have spilled over the Banks of the jural stream.
2. Nag Devi, a locality in the city of Bombay is studded with small hardware businesses where
pipes and fittings, nuts and bolts, tools and other small products, are made and/or sold. These
establishments, well over a thousand employ a considerable, number of workmen in the neigh
boar hood of 5,000, although each unit has (barring four), less than the statutory minimum of 20
workmen. This heavy density of undertakings and workers naturally produced an association of
employers and a union of workmen, each recognizing the other, for the necessary convenience of
collective bargaining. Apparently, these hardware merchants huddled together in the small area,
were getting on. well in their business and in their relations with their workmen and this
goodwill manifested itself in ex grate payments to them of small amounts for a number of years
prior to 1965, when trouble began.
3. Although rooted in goodness and grace, the annual repetition of these payments repaired in the
consciousness of the workers, into a sort or right- nothing surprising when we see in our towns
and temples a trek of charity seekers claiming Benevolence as of right from shop-keepers and
2

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/18

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 18 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
?? Search in selected Domain MANU/SC/0313/1976 Equivalent Citation: AIR1976SC1455, (1976)IILLJ186SC, (1976)3SCC832, [1976]3SCR591 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1971 Decided On: 10.03.1976 Appellant: The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay Vs. Respondents: Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: N.L. Untwalia and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.M. Tarkunde. P.H. Parekh, H. K. Sowani, Manju Jetley, Advs For Respondents/Defendant: G.B. Pai, Shri Narain, O.C. Mathur, J. B. Dandachanji, Advs. Subject: Labour and Industrial Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10A, 10(1), 18 and 19(3); Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 1(3), 2(21), 17, 32, 34, 35, 36(1) and 36(4); Payment of Wages Act - Section 15(2); Factories Act; Bombay Shops and Establishments Act; Constitution of India - Articles 32, 39, 43 and 226; Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975; Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948 Authorities Referred: Black's Legal Dictionary Prior History: Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated 14-7-71 of the Industrialo Tribunal Maharashtra Bombay in Reference (I.T) No. 116 of 1970 Citing Reference: Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd., Calcutta v. Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills Workers' Union, Discussed The Graham Trading Co. (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen MANU/SC/0138/1959 Discussed Messrs. Ispahani Ltd. v. Ispahani Employees' Union, MANU/SC/0136/1959 Discussed Case Note ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4