Case: Chief Mining Engineer, M/s. East India Coal Company Limited Vs. Rameshwar &amp; Others

1. These appeals by special leave arise out of applications filed by workmen of the Appellant-company claiming bonus under the Scheme framed by the Central Government under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 46 of 1948 and railway fares and leave wages under the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) which came into effect as from February 22, 1954. The Central Government Labour Court at Dhanbad allowed their claim under Section 33-C (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reasoning: 5. It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. Since the scope of sub-section (2) is wider than that of sub-s. (1) and the sub-section is not confined to cases arising under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, there is no reason to hold that a benefit provided by a statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary under such statute or Section 33-C (2), cannot fall within sub-section (2). Consequently, the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made underthe Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remains to the be computed must fall under sub-section (2) and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial workman and his employer.The contention that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because the claim arose under the said scheme or because the benefit was monetary or because it involved any substantial question between the Company and the workmen must, in view of the said decisions, failThe answer to this contention is clearly provided in the case of Bombay Gas Co., 1964-3 SCR 709   = (AIR 1964 SC 752  ) (supra)The period of three years of limitation thus applies to applications for payment by the Commissioner from the deposit made in the treasury and has no application to claims under S. 33-C (2) which as aforesaid makes no provision for limitation8. The contention that the respondents workmen, though admittedly the employees of the appellant company, were not entitled to bonus under the Scheme as they were doing domestic and personal work, viz., of supplying water at the residence of certain junior officers of the Company throughout the relevant period, is also not tenableThus the employment of a person as a mali, sweeper or a domestic servant and discharge by him of domestic or personal work as distinguished from non-domestic and non-personal work i.e., work relating to the colliery, are necessary conditions before the exception can apply9. In new of the admitted position that the respondents-workmen were employees of the Company the burden of proof that they fell within the exception is clearly on the Company. In its written statement the Company no doubt averred that these workmen were employed as domestic servants and carried out domestic and personal duties and were therefore not eligible for the bonus. But it is clear from the evidence of the two witnesses examined by the Company that the Company failed to establish either that the respondent were employed as domestic servants or that they were exclusively engaged on domestic or personal work. On the other hand, from the evidence of Sibu, one of the respondent workmen, it appears that the respondents were employed in the colliery, that they were not assigned the exclusive duty of supplying water at the residence of the junior officers but that they supplied water at certain pit heads. On this evidence the Labour Court has given a finding that they were engaged in supplying water at certain points in the colliery. In these circumstances the Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the exception did not apply10. The last contention which remains to be considered was that the Labour Court was not right in awarding the claim of the workmen in full, both as regards bonus and railway fares and leave wages. According to the Company, none of these workmen was in its employment in 1948, that they were appointed at different dates end that they would at best be entitled to bonus for the period during which they were so employed. This contention has, however, no force in view of the Company not having disputed the quantum of relief claimed by the workmen both as regards bonus as also the railway fares and leave wagesA contemplates that the employer has first to tender the bonus payable to the workman under the Scheme. If the bonus, in spite of the tender, remains unclaimed for six months after such tender, he is required to have it credited in the Reserve Account established under the Scheme. The Section then provides by Cl. 2 that the bonus amount shall be paid in the seventh month from the end of the quarter to which it relates by depositing it in such government treasury as may be prescribed and the original challan of such deposit shall be sent within the time set out therein to the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner. Clause (3) then provides that a workman who desires payment of arrears of bonus payable to him shall apply to the said Commissioner within three years from the last date of the quarter to which the bonus relates.The period of three years of limitation thus applies to applications for payment by the Commissioner from the deposit made in the treasury and has no application to claims under S.33C(2) which as aforesaid makes no provision for