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

The appellants, the Bhowra Kankanee Coal Co. Ltd., own the Bhowra and other collieries. On the Bhowra Colliery there are a number of residential bungalows belonging to the appellants occupied by their officers employed in the colliery. The appellants employ certain malis for working as such in these bungalows and their duty is to look after and maintain the gardens there. A dispute along between the appellants and their workmen as to whether these malis, who were fourteen in number, were entitled to bonus. By an order made on June 23, 1959, underthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India referred this dispute along with another with which we are not concerned in this case, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The Points referred concerning the dispute above mentioned were in these terms: (1) Whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus provided in the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme by the management of the Bhowra Colliery from the following garden mazdoor/malis is justified. If not, to what relief are they entitled and from what date? (2) Whether the garden mazdoors/malis referred to above are employed on domestic and personal work within the meaning of paragraph 3 (b) of the Coal Mines bonus Scheme, 1948 and if not, to what relief are they entitled and from what dates The points so referred were decided by the Tribunal against the appellants by an award made on December 7, 1959, and the present appeal is against that awardTill January 1, 1955, the Bhowra and certain other collieries managed as a group, were owned by the Eastern Coal Company Ltd., and on that date these collieries were sold to the appellants. At the time when this sale was being arranged, the workmen in these collieries raised a dispute that their services should be treated as continuous inspite of the transfer of the collieries from one owner to another by the sale and that the conditions of their service and the facilities which they were enjoying under the previous owners should be guaranteed and continued by the succeeding owners, that is the appellants, after the latter took over the collieries. At the instance of the conciliation officer appointed under the Act this dispute was settled by an agreement made on January 14, 1955, to which the Conciliation officer the workmen the previous owners and the appellants were parties. Paragraph 3 of this agreement provided as follows: Agreed that the existing service conditions and the facilities will be continued, excepting pension.Now in 1948 an Act called the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act had been passed by s. 5 of which the Central Government was empowered to frame a bonus scheme for the payment of bonus to the employees of coal mines, The Central Government had framed a Bonus Scheme under this provision in 1948 and since then the previous owners had been paying the malis employed for the bungalow gardens belonging to the Bhowra Colliery, bonus in terms of it. In 1951 they once stopped the bonus but that caused an industrial dispute and they thereupon restored the bonus. Upto the acquisition of the Bhowra Colliery by the appellants they position thus was that these malis had been receiving bonus since 1948 excepting for a short period during which it had been stopped as earlier mentioned. After they became the owners of the Bhowra Colliery, the appellants however stopped the payment of bonus to these malis. This raised the industrial dispute which had led to this appeal.

Reasoning:
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.