Case: Burn &amp; Company Limited &amp; Others Vs. Their Employees

The workmen therefore claimed that these two categories should also be given incentive bonus like the manual workers and pointed out that in other concerns this was done. The company resisted the claim on two grounds (i) that the clerical staff got what is known as the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance, which is higher than the dearness allowance paid to the manual workers and (ii) that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do not actually produce anything and if they are given incentive bonus it will mean that they would be paid on the production of others, namely, the manual workers.3. The tribunal was of the view that the face that the clerks got the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance was no reason for their total exclusion from the benefit of the incentive bonus scheme. It also pointed out that the subordinate staff did not get the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance and there was no difference between their dearness allowance and the dearness allowance of the manual workers. Further the tribunal was conscious of the fact that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do not directly produce goods but that in its opinion was no justification for their total exclusion, particularly when other comparable concerns like the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited at Burnpur, Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited, Howrah and Tatas were paying incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff also. It therefore ordered that the company should extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff also and lay down the rates and conditions for the same.4. The main contention of the company before us is that as the clerical staff and the subordinate staff have no part in actual production they should not be given any incentive bonus, particularly as their work does not increase at all because of the increased production. It is, however, difficult to accept that there will be no increase in the work of the clerical staff in particular and also of the subordinate staff because of higher production, though it may be accepted that the increase may not be in proportion to the increase of production.It is also true that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do not directly produce goods like manual workers and that may be a reason for treating them somewhat differently in the matter of incentive bonus and that is what the tribunal seems to have done, for it has directed the company to extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff and to lay down the rates and conditions of the same and has not said that exactly the same rates and conditions should apply to the clerical and subordinate staff as apply to the manual workers. But there can be no doubt that economically speaking the clerical staff and the subordinate staff also take part in the production and there is no reason therefore for excluding them altogether from the scheme of incentive bonus. Besides, as the tribunal has pointed out, in other comparable concerns incentive, bonus is being paid to the clerical and subordinate staff. The fact that dearness allowance was paid to the clerical staff at a higher scale is also, in our opinion, no reason for depriving them altogether of the benefits of the incentive bonus scheme.5. It is also urged on behalf of the company that the introduction of incentive bonus is a management function and the tribunal should not impose it on the management and reference in this connection has been made to Messrs. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1095 . In the present case, however, the incentive bonus scheme has already been introduced by the company for the major part of its workmen and all that is now asked for it that the benefit of the scheme should be extended to the remainder of the workmen. This prayer is, in our opinion, very different from asking a tribunal to impose an incentive bonus scheme for the first time in a concern.We can see no reason why where an incentive bonus is in force in a concern for the majority of its workmen, the tribunal should not be able to extend the same to the remainder of the workmen.6. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal in this behalf.7. Turning now to the appeal of the workmen with respect to eight annas tiffin allowance during the period the canteen was not working, it is enough to say that this matter was examined at length by the tribunal. It has dealt with the history relation to this tiffin allowance and exhaustively considered all the points raised on behalf of the workmen. Nothing has been brought to our notice which would induce us to interfere with the considered order of the tribunal in this behalf. All the points that Sri Chatterjee has raised on behalf of the workmen have been dealt with by the tribunal and the conclusion it has reached is that having regard to the circumstances, the workmen were not eligible to the tiffin allowance of annas eight per head per working day. All that we need say is that the correspondence between the workmen and the company shows that though the workmen were keen on the provision of a canteen before the tiffin allowance was granted by the award dated July 24, 1953, their keenness disappeared after the award. The company seems to have taken step even before the award to start a canteen and pursued the matter vigorously after the award; but the workmen started objecting to the arrangements made and some of the objections were fantastic. It seems that having been given the tiffin allowance they preferred to have it rather than go to the canteen. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the conclusion of the tribunal is correct and there is no reason for interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is, however, difficult to accept that there will be no increase in the work of the clerical staff in particular and also of the subordinate staff because of higher production, though it may be accepted that the increase may not be in proportion to the increase of production.It is also true that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do not directly produce goods like manual workers and that may be a reason for treating them somewhat differently in the matter of incentive bonus and that is what the tribunal seems to have done, for it has directed the company to extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff and to lay down the rates and conditions of the same and has not said that exactly the same rates and conditions should apply to the clerical and subordinate staff as apply to the manual workers. But there can be no doubt that economically speaking the clerical staff and the subordinate staff also take part in the production and there is no reason therefore for excluding them altogether from the scheme of incentive bonus. Besides, as the tribunal has pointed out, in other comparable concerns incentive, bonus is being paid to the clerical and subordinate staff. The fact that dearness allowance was paid to the clerical staff at a higher scale is also, in our opinion, no reason for depriving them altogether of the benefits of the incentive bonusthe present case, however, the incentive bonus scheme has already been introduced by the company for the major part of its workmen and all that is now asked for it that the benefit of the scheme should be extended to the remainder of the workmen. This prayer is, in our opinion, very different from asking a tribunal to impose an incentive bonus scheme for the first time in a concern.We can see no reason why where an incentive bonus is in force in a concern for the majority of its workmen, the tribunal should not be able to extend the same to the remainder of the workmen.6. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal in thishas been brought to our notice which would induce us to interfere with the considered order of the tribunal in this behalf. All the points that Sri Chatterjee has raised on behalf of the workmen have been dealt with by the tribunal and the conclusion it has reached is that having regard to the circumstances, the workmen were not eligible to the tiffin allowance of annas eight per head per working day. All that we need say is that the correspondence between the workmen and the company shows that though the workmen were keen on the provision of a canteen before the tiffin allowance was granted by the award dated July 24, 1953, their keenness disappeared after the award. The company seems to have taken step even before the award to start a canteen and pursued the matter vigorously after the award; but the workmen started objecting to the arrangements made and some of the objections were fantastic. It seems that having been given the tiffin allowance they preferred to have it rather than go to the canteen. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the conclusion of the tribunal is correct and there is no reason for interference.