CHANDRASEKHAR S Vs. ABDULLAH H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises from an application filed by respondent 1 for recovery of two months' bonus in respect of the year ending 31 March, 1956, under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act from the present petitioner whose employee he was. The petition was resisted on various grounds the most important of them being that bonus by way of an ex gratia payment was not recoverable under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Other contentions raised were that S. 15 having been amended by the time the application was filed, it was the amended provision which excluded such a claim that was applicable and he was not entitled to the bonus and that the application was barred by limitation.

(2.) The District Magistrate of South Kanara who was the authority designated under S. 15 of the Act to hear and decide claims under the Act took the view that the bonus claimed did not come under the definition "wages" under the amended Act which was in operation at the time the application was filed and that even assuming that the Act as it stood before amendment applied to the case the claim could not be sustained as there was no ascertained sum declared as bonus when the applicant was in the service of the present petitioner. For the latter position he relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in William Goodacre v. Mathan [1957 - I L.L.J. 515]. He also held that, as the applicant had been dismissed for misconduct he was not entitled to the bonus. He further took the view that the application was time-barred, since the year of service ended on 31 March, 1956, and the application was filed on 20 December, 1956, i.e., beyond the period of six months prescribed under S. 15(2) of the Act. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decision. He held that the bonus claimed came under the term "wages" as defined in the Act. Though he did not explicitly state in his view it was the amended or the unamended definition of the term "wages" which applied to the case, the tenor of his order would indicate that he thought that it was the unamended Act which was applicable since the period of service in relation to which the bonus amount was claimed by the employee was prior to the amendment. He also held that the claim was not barred by time as it was made within the period allowed after it became payable in June 1956, i.e., in consequence of the declaration of bonus made by the employer. He took the view that the employee's dismissal for misconduct did not affect his claim for bonus as it was not shown that the employer had suffered any loss in consequence of that misconduct.

(3.) In this writ petition by the employer the main contention urged is that the bonus declared by him being in the nature of an ex gratia payment it does not come within the definition of "wages." The other contentions urged before the authorities below are also urged here. But since the question whether the bonus claimed comes within the definition of "wages" under the Act touches the question of jurisdiction, we shall proceed to deal with it.