1966 (8) TMI 64 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 Validity

JALAN TRADING CO. (PRIVATE LTD.) Versus MILL MAZDOOR UNION(With Connected Petitions)

The Court upheld the validity of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, affirming Parliament's authority to legislate on bonus matters for industrial employees. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.2. Constitutionality of Sections 10, 32, 33, 34(2), 36, and 37 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.3. Application of the Act to pending disputes and its retrospective effect.4. Delegation of legislative power to the Central Government under Section 37.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965:- The employers challenged the validity of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, arguing that it was a 'fraud on the Constitution' and a 'colorable exercise of legislative power.'- The Court held that the Parliament has the authority to legislate on matters related to bonus for industrial employees. The Act does not trespass upon the powers of the State Legislature and is not a fraud on the Constitution.2. Constitutionality of Section 10 (Minimum Bonus):- Section 10 mandates the payment of a minimum bonus of 4% of the salary or Rs. 40, whichever is higher, even if the establishment incurs a loss.- The Court found that the provision for minimum bonus is an integral part of the scheme to ensure uniformity and stability in bonus payments, thereby maintaining industrial peace and harmony.- The classification was deemed rational and related to the objective of the Act. The Court held that Section 10 does not violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.3. Constitutionality of Section 32 (Exclusion of Certain Classes of Employees):- Section 32 excludes certain classes of employees from the operation of the Act.- The Court noted that the petitions lacked sufficient particulars to determine whether the exclusion was discriminatory. Therefore, the Court declined to express an opinion on the constitutionality of Section 32 due to the lack of evidence.4. Constitutionality of Section 33 (Application to Pending Disputes):- Section 33 applies the provisions of the Act to pending disputes regarding bonus for accounting years not earlier than 1962.- The Court found that Section 33 creates an arbitrary classification by treating establishments with pending disputes differently from those without. This classification was deemed to lack a rational relation to the objective of the Act, thereby violating Article 14.5. Constitutionality of Section 34(2) (Freezing the Ratio of Bonus):- Section 34(2) freezes the ratio of bonus to gross profits based on the base year, leading to potentially disproportionate bonus payments in subsequent years.- The Court held that this provision is arbitrary and unreasonable, as it perpetuates an unfair ratio without considering the special circumstances of each year. Section 34(2) was found to violate Article 14.6. Constitutionality of Section 36 (Power to Exempt Establishments):- Section 36 grants the appropriate Government the power to exempt establishments from the provisions of the Act based on their financial position and other relevant circumstances.- The Court held that the power conferred by Section 36 does not amount to delegation of legislative authority and is valid. The exercise of this power would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.7. Constitutionality of Section 37 (Power to Remove Difficulties):- Section 37 authorizes the Central Government to make provisions for removing doubts or difficulties in giving effect to the Act.- The Court found that this section delegates legislative power to the executive, which is not permissible. Section 37 was declared invalid.Application of the Act to Pending Disputes and Retrospective Effect:- The Court examined the retrospective application of the Act to disputes pending before May 29, 1965, and found it to be arbitrary and discriminatory.- Sections 33 and 34(2) were declared ultra vires as they imposed an onerous liability based on the fortuitous circumstance of a pending dispute.Delegation of Legislative Power under Section 37:- The Court held that Section 37, which allows the Central Government to remove difficulties, amounts to an impermissible delegation of legislative power.- The section was struck down for violating the principle that legislative power cannot be delegated to the executive.Conclusion:- The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside.- Sections 33, 34(2), and 37 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, were declared ultra vires.- The remaining provisions of the Act were upheld as valid.