HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO LID Vs. G K PATANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following a settlement with the workers employed in their different branches, the appellant, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as the company) paid to these workers an amount equivalent to 6 per cent of their total earnings for the financial year ending 31 July 1971, in addition to bouns at 4 per cent of the annual earnings. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum of settlement reads:

(2.) Mr. B. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that in the face of the clear statement in the memorandum of settlement between the company and the Federation representing the workers at the branches that what was being paid to them was an ex-gratia relief, the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the amount paid was an additional bonus. It was submitted that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in extending the benefit under the settlement to the workmen at the head-office who were not parties to the settlement. Mr. Sen further pointed out that these workmen had no legal right to claim any additional amount as bonus in view of the admitted fact that in the relevant accounting year the company had suffered a loss. It was argued that the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 was a complete code in regard to the subject of bonus and in terms of Section 10 of the Act the workers were not entitled to any amount as bonus beyond the minimum 4 per cent in the year in question.

(3.) We do not however consider it necessary to decide whether the Tribunal was right in treating the additional payment made to the workers at the branches as bonus as in our opinion, the award has not occasioned a failure of justice and the High Court was not wrong in declining to interfere on that ground. It appears that the company had spent about Rs. 20 lakhs in giving this additional relief to the workers at the branches numbering about 13,000. The workmen at the head office are much fewer in number and the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this court on their behalf states that extending the benefit to them would cost the company only Rs. 1 lakh more. The High Court found the extension of the benefit of the workers at the head office justified on the principle of uniformity which in this case serves to maintain industrial peace. In these circumstances if the High Court refused to interfere on the ground that substantial justice had been done, we find no reason to hold that the High Court had exercised its discretion arbitrarily. This Court has refused to interfere in similar circumstances in more than one case, though the order complained of might suffer from some infirmity. (See Shree Balvantrai Chimanlal Trivedi v. M. N. Nagrashna, C. A. No. 38 of 1958 decided on 29-10-1959 (SC) and A. M. Allison V. B. L. Sen, 1957 SCR 359 = (AIR 1957 SC 227). We are not therefore inclined to disturb the order made by the High Court which we consider reasonable and proper in the circumstances of the case.