Case: Employers In Relation To The Bhowra Colliery Vs. Their Workmen

3. of the agreement of January 14, 1955. It may be that the Tribunal thought that the Bonus Scheme framed by the Central Government formed a condition of service of the malis or a facility to which they were entitled and which the appellants undertook by the agreement of January 14, 1955, to continue. If this was the point of view, then of course the further question still remains whether the malis were on domestic and personal work for if they were, then they would not be entitled to the bonus as a facility or a condition of their service under the Scheme. 4. It was however contended on behalf of the respondent workmen in this Court that the right to bonus was a condition of the service of the malis and a facility to which they were entitled independently of the Bonus Scheme and that this is what the Tribunal had held. The record however is not very clear on this question. The appellants dispute the contention of the workmen and further say that in any event the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide that question for the question referred to it was the right of the malis to bonus under the Bonus Scheme. 5. We think that the appellants contention is well founded. What had been referred was the question whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus Provided in the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme ...... is justified. On the language of the order of reference it seems to us that the dispute referred was as to the right as provided in the Bonus Scheme and not as to any other right. This also was the workmens case before the Tribunal as appears from its written statement filed there. In the statement of case filed in this appeal also, the respondent took the same position. We therefore think that if the Tribunal had held that the malis were entitled to the bonus under the agreement of January 14, 1955 independently of the Bonus Scheme it had exceeded its jurisdiction and its award cannot be upheld.The question still remains as to whether on a proper construction of paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme these malis had any right to bonus. That was undubitably the question referred to the Tribunal. The words requiring construction are on domestic and personal work. The Tribunal held that malis working in bungalows belonging to the appellants were not working for the home or household of private persons or individuals and were therefore not on domestic work. It also held that as the malis work under the direction and control of the appellants and were liable to be transferred from one bungalow to another or to some other work they were not on personal work. We are unable to accept this construction of paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme. Domestic means as of the home. We feel no doubt that the malis who were working in the bungalows occupied by the officers were working in the home of the officers. They were, therefore, on domestic work. The work they were doing would not cease to be domestic work because the bungalows belonged not to the officers but to the appellants. Whether a work is domestic or not would depend on its nature. Suppose an officer has employed his own mali for working in the bungalow garden, that mali would surely be on domestic work. This is not disputed. The nature of that work would not change because the the mali was working not under the orders of the officer occupying the bungalow but under the appellants, nor because the bungalow did not belong to the officer but to the appellants. Nor for the same reason does the fact that the malis were employed by the appellants and not by the officers make any differences The fact that Malis might be transferred to other jobs and cease to be malis altogether is also irrelevant. On such transfer they might become entitled to bonus. The exception in paragraph 3 deprives them of the bonus only for the time they are malis on domestic and personal work.Paragraph 3, of the Bonus Scheme contemplated malis who were employees of the colliery owners and were yet on domestic work. The Tribunal thought that paragraph 3 only contemplated cases of malis appointed by the officers who were paid some allowance by the colliery owners for keeping malis in the gardens of the bungalows occupied by them. It may be that malis to engaged would be the employees of the colliery owners, as the term employee is defined in the Act under which the Bonus Scheme was framed, but we see no reason to restrict malis on domestic work referred to in paragraph 3 to such malis only. As we have said earlier, whether a malis on domestic work or not would depend on the nature of the work. As the work which the malis with whom we are concerned did, was domestic work. these malis must be deemed to be within the exception mentioned in paragraph 3. They would not cease to be malis on domestic work because they had been working in the bungalows belonging to the appellants or were under their control and orders. 6. We further feel no difficulty in holding that these malis were on personal work. The word personal is obviously used in the sence of work for an individual as distinguished from work for the Coal mine as an institution. These malis were undoubtedly working for the officers as individuals. Therefore they were on personal work. 7. For these reasons in our view the malis in the present case were not entitled to any bonus under the Bonus Scheme. As in our opinion the order of reference does not raise any question as to whether the malis were entitled to bonus apart from the Bonus Scheme, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on that question and we do not do so. 8.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We think that the appellants contention is well founded. What had been referred was the question whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus Provided in the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme ...... is justified. On the language of the order of reference it seems to us that the dispute referred was as to the right as provided in the Bonus Scheme and not as to any other right. This also was the workmens case before the Tribunal as appears from its written statement filed there. In the statement of case filed in this appeal also, the respondent took the same position. We therefore think that if the Tribunal had held that the malis were entitled to the bonus under the agreement of January 14, 1955 independently of the Bonus Scheme it had exceeded its jurisdiction and its award cannot be upheld.The question still remains as to whether on a proper construction of paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme these malis had any right to bonus. That was undubitably the question referred to the Tribunal. The words requiring construction are on domestic and personal work. The Tribunal held that malis working in bungalows belonging to the appellants were not working for the home or household of private persons or individuals and were therefore not on domestic work. It also held that as the malis work under the direction and control of the appellants and were liable to be transferred from one bungalow to another or to some other work they were not on personal work. We are unable to accept this construction of paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme. Domestic means as of the home. We feel no doubt that the malis who were working in the bungalows occupied by the officers were working in the home of the officers. They were, therefore, on domestic work. The work they were doing would not cease to be domestic work because the bungalows belonged not to the officers but to the appellants. Whether a work is domestic or not would depend on its nature. Suppose an officer has employed his own mali for working in the bungalow garden, that mali would surely be on domestic work. This is not disputed. The nature of that work would not change because the the mali was working not under the orders of the officer occupying the bungalow but under the appellants, nor because the bungalow did not belong to the officer but to the appellants. Nor for the same reason does the fact that the malis were employed by the appellants and not by the officers make any differences The fact that Malis might be transferred to other jobs and cease to be malis altogether is also irrelevant. On such transfer they might become entitled to bonus. The exception in paragraph 3 deprives them of the bonus only for the time they are malis on domestic and personal work.Paragraph 3, of the Bonus Scheme contemplated malis who were employees of the colliery owners and were yet on domestic work. The Tribunal thought that paragraph 3 only contemplated cases of malis appointed by the officers who were paid some allowance by the colliery owners for keeping malis in the gardens of the bungalows occupied by them. It may be that malis to engaged would be the employees of the colliery owners, as the term employee is defined in the Act under which the Bonus Scheme was framed, but we see no reason to restrict malis on domestic work referred to in paragraph 3 to such malis only. As we have said earlier, whether a malis on domestic work or not would depend on the nature of the work. As the work which the malis with whom we are concerned did, was domestic work. these malis must be deemed to be within the exception mentioned in paragraph 3. They would not cease to be malis on domestic work because they had been working in the bungalows belonging to the appellants or were under their control and ordersWe further feel no difficulty in holding that these malis were on personal work. The word personal is obviously used in the sence of work for an individual as distinguished from work for the Coal mine as an institution. These malis were undoubtedly working for the officers as individuals. Therefore they were on personal workFor these reasons in our view the malis in the present case were not entitled to any bonus under the Bonus Scheme. As in our opinion the order of reference does not raise any question as to whether the malis were entitled to bonus apart from the Bonus Scheme, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on that question and we do not do so.