https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288261 A concluded bonus agreement was held to arise from the tripartite committee proceedings and signed recommendations, so the arrangement attracted section 34 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Court treated the committee process as producing a mutual consensus between management and labour representatives, supported by their conduct and authority to negotiate. It further held that section 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not inconsistent with section 34 because the two enactments operated in different fields: the Bonus Act governed bonus rights, while section 3(b) was an emergency administrative power to maintain public order, supplies and employment. The notification was therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2020 16:01:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288261 A concluded bonus agreement was held to arise from the tripartite committee proceedings and signed recommendations, so the arrangement attracted section 34 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Court treated the committee process as producing a mutual consensus between management and labour representatives, supported by their conduct and authority to negotiate. It further held that section 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not inconsistent with section 34 because the two enactments operated in different fields: the Bonus Act governed bonus rights, while section 3(b) was an emergency administrative power to maintain public order, supplies and employment. The notification was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288261