CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, we have to deal with the claim of the workmen of the State Bank of india, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, for customary bonus. I find that the workmen have been referred to as 'awardstaff, but in order to avoid any ambiguity, I would prefer to refer to such claimants for customary bonus as 'workmen' in this order. Their agitation for such bonus was the subject matter of a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,. to the first-respondent in I. D. No. 32 of 1982. The questions referred for adjudication to the first-respondent ran as follows:

(2.) THE principles relating to customary bonus having been settled by pronouncements of the Highest Court in the Land, there is little room for raising a controversy over the principles to be applied. The only question germane for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the facts of the case do support the claim of the workmen for customary bonus, as countenanced by the first-respondent. There are certain ingredients which require satisfaction as per the principles countenanced ' by Judicial pronouncements to countenance a claim for customary bonus. One is the payment should have been over an unbroken series of years. Secondly, the payment should have been for a sufficiently long period, though the length of the period may depend upon the circumstances of each case; the period may normally have to be longer to justify an inference of customary bonus. Thirdly, payment must have been at a uniform rate throughout to justify an inference that the payment at such and such rate had become customary in the particular concern. Fourthly, the payment must have been made not out of bounty. Payment during years of loss is not a since qua non to spell out customary bonus and that need not be demonstrated, because the particular concern could have had the fortune of continuous period of profits and not of loss.

(3.) COMING to the facts of the present case, from 1944 till 1963 that there were disbursements of bonus at the rate of one month's basic pay at every half year is not in dispute. It must be noted that until 1955, when the Bank was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act 23 of 1955), the previous body was Imperial Bank of India, which again stood constituted under the Imperial Bank of india Act, 1920. Records have not been exposed, but the position with regard to disbursements as aforesaid stands admitted. These disbursements satisfied all the tests recapitulated above, with regard to a claim for customary bonus. The disbursements were unbroken; they were for a sufficiently long period; it has not been demonstrated that they were paid out of bounty; and they were at a uniform rate. Hence, upto 1963, the basis for the present claim seems to be well established. After 1963 also, there were disbursements of bonus upto the first half of 1975. But, from 1963 onwards, controversy gets ripened because payments made, were over and above the two months' basic pay. On 30th November 1965, the workmen projected a claim for additional bonus for the past years 1956 to 1963. The letter and the memorandum enclosed therewith have been marked as Ex. M. 14. In this memorandum the workmen have put forth a grievance with regard to the adequacy of disbursements of bonus during the period in question, on the basis of one months' basic pay for each half year, the one ended with 30th June and the other ended with 31st December. However, we do not get any positive indication as to whether the claim for additional bonus for the past years 1956 to 1963 was settled in any effective manner, though there is an attempt on the part of Mr. B. R. Doha, learned counsel for the workmen, to say that such claims were, in fact, countenanced. He is more on implications to be drawn from the records rather than any direct document evidencing such disbursements of additional bonus. It must be straightway pointed out that the workmen were paid additional bonus over and above the two months' basic pay, is neither relevant nor helpful to the present claim of the workmen. On the other hand, the management of the Bank is 5 hastening to build up a counter-active theory, that uniformity in rate stood lost during the period, and that must dissuade the Court from countenancing the present claim of the workmen for customary bonus.