Skip to content


Calcutta State Transport Corporation Vs. First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R. 1081 (W) of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Cal206
ActsRoad Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Section 30; ;Industraial Disputes Act, 1947
AppellantCalcutta State Transport Corporation
RespondentFirst Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Bose, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.K. Acharya and ;Ramen Banerjee, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....the fund of the corporation can only be spent under the provisions of the act, section 30 of the road transport corporations act does not permit payment of any amount as bonus and as such the reference is without jurisdiction. the preliminary point was decided against the petitioner and the petitioner moved this court and obtained the present rule-the short point for consideration in this case is whether in view of section 30 of the road transport corporations act the petitioner corporation can pay bonus to its employees and whether the reference is a valid reference. section 30 of the said act runs as follows:'disposal of net profits:-- after making provision for payment of interest and dividend under section 28 and for depreciation, reserve and other funds under section 29, a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.

1. In this Rule the petitioner Calcutta State Transport Corporation challenges an order passed by the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on 28th of June 1964. The respondent No. 3 claimed profit sharing bonus from the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 referred the matter to the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for adjudication issue being Bonus for the year 1960-61. At the hearing the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the extent that the Corporation is a statutory Corporation; the fund of the Corporation can only be spent under the provisions of the Act, Section 30 of the Road Transport Corporations Act does not permit payment of any amount as bonus and as such the reference is without jurisdiction. The preliminary point was decided against the petitioner and the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule-The short point for consideration in this case is whether in view of Section 30 of the Road Transport Corporations Act the petitioner Corporation can pay bonus to its employees and whether the reference is a valid reference. Section 30 of the said Act runs as follows:

'Disposal of net profits:-- After making provision for payment of interest and dividend under Section 28 and for depreciation, reserve and other funds under Section 29, a Corporation may utilise such percentage of its net annual profit as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government for the provision of amenities to the passengers using the road transport service, welfare of labour employed by the Corporation and for such other purposes as may be prescribed with the previous approval of the Central Government, and out of the balance such amount as may, with the previous approval of the State Government and the Central Government be specified in this behalf by the Corporation, may be utilised for financing the expansion programmes of the Corporation and the remainder, if any, shall be made over to the State Government for the purpose of road development.' While deciding the question the Tribunal held on the basis of the Supreme Court decision : (1961)ILLJ249SC that the right to claim bonus has acquired a status of legal right and it cannot be said that the reference is bad in view of Section 30 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. The Road Transport Corporations Act is silent on the question of payment of the bonus. I think the Tribunal is right in holding that Section 30 cannot be read as a bar in entertaining the claim of the workmen for bonus because of the absence of the provision under the Road Transport Corporations Act for payment of the bonus to the employees and the provisions under the Act are not relevant consideration in regard to the payment of, bonus. The principle laid down in AIR 1957 SC at page 110 is applicable in this case also. The Supreme Court in that case held in the matter of Municipal Act and the claim of the bonus cannot be defeated by the provision of Municipal Act inasmuch as those provisions have no relevancy in regard to the dispute regarding bonus.

2. In that view of the matter this Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated.

3. Let the operation of the order be stayed for a period of six weeks from today.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //