DEEN BANDHU CHAUDHARY Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Deen Bandhu Chaudhri, Manager of the Navjyoti Daily challenging the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jaipur dated 22 -11 -68 marked Ex. 13 by which the claim of the non -petitioner No. 2 Shyam Anjan for payment of minimum bonus for the years 1965 and 1966 amounting to Rs. 96/ - was allowed, and further a sum of Rs. 20/ - was granted as compensation for delayed payment. It is the admitted case of the parties that Shyam Anjan was employed by the petitioner a Proof -Reader and his services were terminated with effect from 12 -3 -1967. Shyam Anjan filed an application under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Acton 26 -9 -1967 alleging that the minimum bonus payable to him under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 at 4% of the wages earned by him during the years 1965 and 1966 had been wrongly withheld by the employer. It was prayed that the employer may be directed to pay minimum bonus for these two years amounting to Rs. 96/ -along with 10 times compensation amounting to Rs. 960/ -. A copy of this application has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 1. The application was opposed by the employer, who pleaded inter alia that the. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the employee's claim for bonus. He also denied the worker's claim to at the payment of bonus, and further pleaded that the employer was exempt from the operation of the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. The authority, however, repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the employer arid issued a direction for payment of bonus and compensation as stated above.

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has been argued in the first place that bonus is not covered by the definition of the term 'wages' as contained in the Payment of Wages Act, and therefore, the application before the Authority filed by the non -petitioner No. 2 was not maintainable in as much as the Payment of Wages Act is concerned only with wages. Secondly, it was urged that the adjudication of the claim of the non -petitioner No.2 to the payment of bonus under the Bonus Act would involve or give rise to difficult and complicated questions of law and fact which the Payment of Wages Authority was not competent to decide, and, therefore, it ought to have directed the non -petitioner No. 2 to seek his remedy within the four corners of the Payment of Bonus Act.

(3.) SECTION 10 of the Bonus Act makes provision for payment of minimum bonus and provides that subject to the provisions of Sections 8 and 13 every employer shall be bound to pay to every employee in an accounting year a minimum bonus which stall be four percent of the salary or wage earned by the employee during the accounting year or forty rupees whichever is higher, whether there are profits in the accounting year or not.