Janardan Sharma, for respondent No.
187 of 1966 .
2 and 3.
A. Palkhivala, R. J. Kolah, B. Dutta, C. C. Jain, Bhuvnesh Kumari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant in A. No.
P. Goyal, for intervener No.
R. Vasavada, for intervener No.
K. Sowani, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent.
K. Sen, and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No.
Conciliation was tried but failed and a reference was made by the Sabha to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay under 73 A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
187 or 1966 Appeal by special leave from the Award Part I dated the July 21, 1965 of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay in Reference IC No.
This demand was refused by the employers on the ground, among others, that there was numbersurplus as the Company was carrying forward a big loss.
18 and 19.
C. Chatterjee, R. K. Garg, M. K. Ramamurthi, Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma and Satish Loomba, for intervener No.
C. Setalvad, G. B. Pai, P. K. Kurain, B. Dutta, Buvnesh Kumari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant in W.P. No.
4A. K. Sowani and K. R. Chaudhuri, for intervener No.
While this reference was pending the Payment of Bonus Ordinance oil 29th May, 1965 came into force.
78 of 1963.
3 of 1966 .
Vithalbhai B. Patel and I. N. Shroff for interveners Nos.
3 and 32 of 1966.
The Industrial Court upheld the plea of the workmen and directed the employers subject to the provisions of the Bonus Ordinance, 1965, to pay to each employee bonus for the year 1962 equivalent to 15 days of the salary or wages or Rs.
Solicitor General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. A liar, for respondent No.
Solicitor General, Al.
Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for intervener No.2.
187 of 1966 and W.P. No.
Niren De, Addl.
12 in C.A. No.
I M. Nanavati, O. P. Malhotra and J. B. Dadachanji, for in tervener N o. 16.
32 of 1966 .
Niren De, Addl.
The Commission made its recommendations and they were accepted by Government, with some modifications, by Resolution dated September, 2, 1964.
was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. Shah, J. During the Pendency, before the Industrial Court, Bombay, of a reference under s. 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which arose Out of a demand for payment of bonus for the years 1961 and 1962, the Payment of Bonus Ordinance 3 of 1965 was promulgated by the President on May 29, 1965, with immediate effect.
Comparative tables to demonstrate these and other points are filed with the petitions.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A. Palkhivala, J. B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos.
K. Sen and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No.
Niren De, Addl.
Solicitor General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.
6, 9,11 and 15.
Sreekantan Nair, for respondent No.
AND Writ Petitions Nos.
S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for intervener No.
C. Setalvad, R. J. Kolah, and J. B. Dadachanji, for intervener No.
A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate General, Kerala, A. G. Puddissery and M. R. K. Pillai, for respondents Nos.2 and 3.
J. Kolalh, B. Narayanswami and J.B. Dadachanji, for intervener No 13.
N. Shroff, for intervener No.
A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate General, Kerala and M. R. K Pillai, for respondents Nos.
The companytending parties also intervened in matters other than their own.
Writ Petitions Nos.
At the hearing of this appeal and the two writ petitions many Companies and Workers Unions intervened in one or more of them.
3 of 1966 .
3 of 1966 and 32 of 1966 are filed by two public limited companypanies.
The Judgment of WANCHOO, SHAH and SIKRI, JJ was delivered by SHAH, J. The dissenting Opinion of HIDAYATULLAH and RAMA SWAMI, JJ.
The Sabha gave numberice of change on May 13, 1963 and demanded 25 of the total wages as bonus for each of the two years.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Petition under Art.
40/ whichever is higher.
The representatives of the workmen claimed that even if the plea of the employers that the profit and loss account of the establishment for the years in question disclosed a loss, was companyrect, the Ordinance governed the dispute and that the employees were entitled to receive bonus at the minimum rate of 4 of the salary or wages or Rs.
2 and 3.
Ltd. appellant was the opposite party to an industrial dispute companycerning a claim for bonus for the years 1961, 1962 raised by the workmen of the Company represented by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay respondents .
M. Barot, Officer, Textile Union in person intervener No.
After the expiry of the period, the Labour Association demanded bonus on the basis of the pact, but the Millowners claimed that the pact was companytrary to the Full Bench Formula, and the claim was number sustainable.
The Bonus Ordinance as well as the Bonus Act were passed to implement the recommendations accepted in the Governments Resolution.
B. Pai, B. Dutta, Buvnesh Kumari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner in W. P. No.
