TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (5) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal. Though the order of reference did not specify the year for which the bonus was in dispute, it is common ground between the -parties that the dispute was for bonus for the year 1953. The case of the workmen, who are respondents before us, was that the company had been paying one month's bonus invariably from 1940 to 1950. In 1951, one month's bonus was paid in October and half a month's further bonus was paid in December. In 1952 one month's bonus was paid. The demand that the workmen made in their letter of August 27, 1953, was for three month's bonus. The company replied that payments in past years had been entirely ex gratia and as there was loss in 1953 it was not possible to make any ex gratia payment that year. The workmen then ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conclusion that puja bonus could not be awarded in this case on the basis of an implied term of employment it proceeded to dismiss the claim on the basis of custom also. The workmen then went up in appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal has also mixed the two aspects of puja bonus, namely, whether it is based on an implied term of employment or on custom; but it came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to establish custom and therefore ordered payment of one month's basic wages as puja bonus. It was also inclined to the view that the company's accounts showing loss were not reliable and there might even be a case for profit bonus; but eventually it granted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., however, was concerned with puja bonus as an implied term of employment and not as a matter of tradition or custom in Bengal. It is, however, clear that puja bonus which is usually paid in Bengal is of two kinds; namely, (1) where it is paid as an implied term of employment as explained in Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills case (1952 L. A. C. 370) and (2) where, it is paid as a customary and traditional payment as stated in the Industrial Tribunal's award referred to above. We have considered the tests to be applied where it is a case of payment on an implied term of employment in Messrs. Ispahani Ltd. v. Ispahani Employees' Union ([1960](1)1 S.C.R. 24. 1948 to 1952) and we need not repeat what we have said there. In the present case it has been poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uniform rate throughout and the Industrial Tribunal would be justified in deciding what should be the quantum of payment in a particular year taking into account the varying payments made in previous years. But when the question of customary and traditional bonus arises for adjudication, the considerations may be somewhat different. In such a case, the Tribunal will have to consider: (i) whether the payment has been over an unbroken series of years; (ii) whether it has been for a sufficiently long period, though the length of the period might depend on the circumstances of each case: even so the period may normally have to be longer to justify an inference of traditional and customary puja bonus than may be the case with puja bonus based on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of the payment and it assured the tribunal that there was no intention then to discontinue the payment. The payment was continued from 1949 to 1951. In 1952, there was some dispute and originally the company paid one month's wages as advance of pay and not as bonus. Some of the workmen, however, accepted the payment while others did not, because they were not satisfied with the amount being paid as advance of pay. The chairman of the board of directors of the company visited Calcutta in 1952 and then on the representation of the workmen the advance was converted into one month's bonus and even those workmen who had not accepted the advance were allowed to draw the bonus. It cannot therefore be said that there was any break in the payme....