CHEMICAL ENTERPRISES P LTD Vs. K P KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in suit No. 6825 of 1973 on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 340 as bonus due from the defendant, stating that he was employed under the defendant during 1972-73 and the defendant paid one month's salary as bonus every year and for 1972-73 also the defendant paid bonus to other employees and the plaintiff having resigned from the defendant only on 30/8/1973, the plaintiff is also entitled to the bonus for the year 1972-73. This suit was contested by the defendant mainly on the ground that neither under any contract nor under any law bonus is payable and the claim of the plaintiff is not sustainable. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendant preferred the New Trial Application No. 175 of 1974 to the New Trial Bench of the Small Causes Court, Madras and the said bench confirmed the judgment and decree of the first Court. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the New Trial Bench of the Small Causes Court, Madras. I find that the Courts below have not at all appreciated the position in law with reference to payment of bonus. Until the payment of Bonus Act XX of 1965 was enacted there was no obligation on the part of the employer to pay bonus during any particular period and an employee cannot as of right make a claim for the payment of bonus. Merely because the employer voluntarily paid bonus to some of the employees that will not entitle any other employee to make a claim for such a bonus. After the enactment of the Payment of Bonus Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the employees of establishments to which the said Act does not apply cannot claim bonus de horn the Act. The Act was intended to be a comprehensive and exhaustive law dealing with the entire subject of bonus and the persons to whom it should apply. It will be relevant to consider section 1 (3) of the Act:

(2.) THE exclusion of establishments where less than 20 persons are employed in section 1 (3) of the Act is not a criterion suggesting that Parliament has not dealt with the subject-matter of bonus comprehensively in the act. Considering the history of the legislation, the background and the circumstances in which the Act was enacted, the object of the Act and its scheme, it is not possible to accept the contention that the Act is not an exhaustive one dealing comprehensively with the subject-matter of bonus in all its aspects or that Parliament still left it open to those to whom the Act does not apply by reason of its provision either as to exclusion or exemption to make a claim for bonus. Such is the opinion pronounced by the Supreme court in S. J. G. Chand v. Secretary, M. C. G. and K Merchants Workers Union (1968 17 FLR 218=1969 1 SCR 366=air 1969 SC 530 ).

(3.) IN the present case, it is not the case of the plaintiff that his claim for bonus is under the Payment of Bonus Act, XX of 1965. A perusal of the plaint discloses that such was not the case put forth by the plaintiff. In answer to my question, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff states that the claim of the plaintiff is not based on the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act XX of 1965. In the said circumstances it would be not possible to sustain the claim of the plaintiff. May be, the claim for bonus could be based upon an award, or settlement or agreement. Such is not the case here.