SAKHKKAR MILLS MAZDOOR SANGHversusGWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD.

                                                                                 958
    A



                       SAKHKT<AR MILLS MAZDOOR SANGH
B                                              v.

                             GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD.

                                     Feburary 22, 1985

C         (0. CHINNAPPA RHODY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J

            The Payment of Bonus Act 1965, sections 10and13 'seasonal' employees-
         Whtther entitle4 to payment of minimum bonus.

               Words and Phrases :
D
               •working days in any accounting year'-Meaning of-Section 13     Pay~
         ment of Bonus Act l96j.

              The first respondent. a Company engaged in the manufacture of Sugar,
         employed workers both on a permanent basis as weJI as on a seasonal basis.

E              The einployer refused to pay bonus to the seasonal employees on the
         ground that they were not employed throughout the year, and the conse~
         queotial dispute that arose between the management and the appellant·union
         was referred to the Industrial Court under section 49 of the Madhya
         Pradesh Industrial Relations Act.

              The Industrial Court decided in favour of the workers and he Id that
F       they were entitled to payment or the minimum bonus.

               The Writ Petition filed by the company was allowed and the award
        of the Industrial Court was quashed. The- High Court interpreted the words
        "working days in any accounting year" in section 13 of the Payment of
        Bonus Act 1965 as meaning all those days or the year except holidays, and
        held that the workers were only entitled to proportionate bonus and not
G       the minimum bonus guaranteed under section 10 of the Act.

              Allowing the Appeal of the Union to this Court,

              HELD: 1. in the case of a factory which works seasonally during an
        accounting year, reworking days in any accounting year" can only mean
        those days of the year du.ring which the employee concerned is actually
        allowed to work. Having regard to the scheme and purpose of the Payment
        of Bonus Act 1965, the High Court was not justified in placing a different
H
   MAZDOOR SANGH v. GWALIOR SUGAR co. (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)             959

construction on the meaning of the expression "working days in any            A
accounting year". [960H; 96IA]

      2. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the award of the
Industrial Court is restored. The bonus payable to the employees will carry
ioter~t at nine per cent per annum~ from the date bonus became   due until
                                                                              B
date of payment. [96 IB]

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1972.

      From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th January, 1970
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.                c
437 of 1967.

      K. K. Jain, Pramod Dayal, A. D. Sangar and Ajay K. Jain for
the appellant.

     B. Datta, Rishi Kesh, B. P. Singh and Ajit Puddiserry for the            D
respondent.

      H. K. Puri and C. L. Sahu for the Interveners.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      CH!NNAPPA REDDY, J. The first respondent is a company                   E
engaged in the manufacture of sugar and employing over 1100
workers, 300 of them on a permanent basis and 800 on a seasonal
basis. The permanent employees are those employed on the clerical
side and in the operation and maintenance of machines. The other
800 employees are seasonal employees who are so employed because
                                                                              F
the factory itself does not work through out the year but works
during a certain season every year from December when the sugar-
cane crop is ready for crushing until the crushing is over. The
employer refused to pay bonus to the seasonal employees during the
year 1964-65 on the ground that they were not employed through
out the year. A dispute arose between the management and the
Mazdoor Sangh which was referred to the Industrial Court Madhya               G
Pradesh, Indore for arbitration under sec. 49 of the Madhya Pradesh
Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court decided in favour of
the workers, but on a writ petition filed by the company, the award
of the arbitrator was quashed and it was held that the workers were
only entitled to proportionate bonus and not the minimum bonus
                                                                              H
    960                  SUPRBMB COURT RBORTS                 [198S] ~ s.c.P..

A   guaranteed by sec. 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. This
    appeal has been filed by the Mazdoor Sangh under a certificate
    granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

          To our minds the question is a simple one and is capable of
B   only one answer. Sections 10 and 13 of the Payment of Bonus Act,
    as they stood at the relevant time, were as follows:         •

               "Section 10. PAYMENT OF MINIMUM BONUS-
          Subject to the provisions of ss 8 and 13 every employer
          shall be bound to pay to every employee in an accounting
c         year a minimum bonns which shall be four per cent of
          the salary or wage earned by the employee during the
          accounting year or forty rupees, whichever is higher,
          whether there are profits in the accounting year or not;

D               Provided that where such employee has not completed
          fifteen years of age at the beginning of the accounting year,
          the provisioPs of this section shall have effect in relation to
          such employee as if for the words 'forty rupees', the words
          'twenty five rupees" were substituted."

E              "Section 13-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF
          BONUS IN CERTAIN CASES-Where an employee
          has uot worked for all the working days in any accounting
          year, the minimum bonus of forty rupees or, as the case
          may be, of twenty five rupees, per cent, of his salary or
F         wage for the days he has worked in that accounting year
          shall be proportionately reduced."

          The High Court has interpreted the words "working days in
    any accounting year" as meaning all those days of the year except
    holidays. While such an interpretation may be alright in the case
    of a factory which works all through the year, it would be hardly
G   appropriate in the case of a factory which works during a particular
    season every year. In the case of a factory which works seasonally
    during an accounting year, "working days in any accounting year"
    can only mean those days of the year during which the employee
    concerned is actually allowed to work. That was the interpretation
    which was placed upon the expression by the Industrial Court and
H
            MAZDOOR SANGH v. GWALIOR SUGAR co. (Chinnappa Reddy, J,) 961


         we think it is the proper interpretation. Having regard to the         A
         scheme and the purpose of the Act, we do not think that the High
         Court was justified in placing a different construction on the mean-
         ing of the expression "working days in any accounting year". We,
         therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the
         award of the Industrial Court. The bonus payable to the employees
• •      will carry interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum, from the
         day when the bonus became due until the date of payment. The
                                                                                B
         appeal is allowed with costs.




         N.V.K                                               Appeal allowed.




"'   .
     )




 --~