# BHOWRA COLLIERY v. THEIR WORKMEN

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 883
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-12-07
- **Case number:** CIVIL Al>PELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1961
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhowra-colliery-v-their-workmen-2351
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indualrial Di1pute-Bonua-Mali1 Working in
~fficers
bungalowa_:Whether entiUe~Ooal Mines Provident Fund and
Bonus 8cheme1 Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) •· 5.
In exercise of the power conferred by s. 5 of the Coal
Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, the
Central Government frame.d a Bonus Scheme for the payment
of bonus to employees of coal mines. Paragraph 3 of the
scheme made every employee in a coal mine eligible for a
bonus except, inl<ir alia, "a mali on domestic and persorn~I
work". The question for consideration was whether under
thi< paragraph the malis workin' in the officers' bungalows
had any right to bonus
Held, that these malis were not entitled to any bonus
under tho Bon·tS Scheme. Paragraph 3 contemplated malis
who were emplovces of thf'.: colliery owners and were yet on
domestic work.
D1.nestic meant as of the home. The malis
1962
The CommiasiontJ of
lncome~,ax, Dflhi
and RajaJthan
v .
.1.\1 f°J. Na 1io'lal
Finance Ltd.
H 1d1J1alullah J.
1968
Jc..,,,,,y30.
IfU
Bllf1'/o)wrs ;,,
8'1alio• lo u..
B/Mulr• OollU.,.
••
n,;, ".,,,_
s...,J,.
884
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
who were working in the bungalows occupied by the officers
were workinit in the homes of the officers. They were there!
fore, on domestic work. The work they were doing did not
cease to be domestic work because the bungalows belonged
not to the offici:n but to the appellant or because they were
under the control and orders of the appellant. Further, these
malis were on personal work. The word "personal" was
tu.d in the sense 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.
CIVIL Al>PELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 96 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the a.ward dated
December 7, 1959, of the Central Governm~nt
Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad in reference No. 42 of
1959.
S. 0. Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the
appellant.
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent.
1962. January 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SARKAR, J.-The appellants, the Bhowra Kankanee Coal Co. Ltd., own the Bhowra and other
collieries.
On the Bhowra Colliery there are a.
num her of residential bungalows belonging to the
appellants oocupied 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 aft.Ar and maintain the gardens there.
A dispute a.rose between the a.ppella.nts 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, under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India referred this dilpute a.long with another with which we
a.re not concerned in thil case, for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal, Dhanba.d. The Points referred
concerning the di~ute abovementioned were in
these terms :
(1) Whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus provided in the Coal Minee Bonus
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
885
Scheme by the management of the Bhowra
Colliery from the following garden mazdoors/
malis is justified.
If not, to what relief are
they entitled and from what date?
(2) Whether the garden maztloors/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 date?
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 award.
Till 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 work·
men 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 anothe

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
883
intention was to benefit the assessee Company by
the acquisition of a large blook of shares at a very
much larger price than obtaining in the m'l.rket, to
acquire certain agencies of a profitable character.
In our opinion, this transaction must be regarded
as one on the capital side. Shares were never
treated as part of the stock-in-trade. Tb.ey were
not sold in the market, but were sold at a loss to
another Company belonging to the same group,
with the obviouR intention of setting off the losses
against the profits, thus cancelling the profits, and
saving them from taxation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs
on the respondent.
Appeal all(JWed.
EMPLOYERS IN RELATCON TO THE
BHOWRA COLLIERY
v.
THEIR WORKMEN
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Indualrial Di1pute-Bonua-Mali1 Working in
~fficers
bungalowa_:Whether entiUe~Ooal Mines Provident Fund and
Bonus 8cheme1 Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) •· 5.
In exercise of the power conferred by s. 5 of the Coal
Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948, the
Central Government frame.d a Bonus Scheme for the payment
of bonus to employees of coal mines. Paragraph 3 of the
scheme made every employee in a coal mine eligible for a
bonus except, inl<ir alia, "a mali on domestic and persorn~I
work". The question for consideration was whether under
thi< paragraph the malis workin' in the officers' bungalows
had any right to bonus
Held, that these malis were not entitled to any bonus
under tho Bon·tS Scheme. Paragraph 3 contemplated malis
who were emplovces of thf'.: colliery owners and were yet on
domestic work.
D1.nestic meant as of the home. The malis
1962
The CommiasiontJ of
lncome~,ax, Dflhi
and RajaJthan
v .
.1.\1 f°J. Na 1io'lal
Finance Ltd.
H 1d1J1alullah J.
1968
Jc..,,,,,y30.
IfU
Bllf1'/o)wrs ;,,
8'1alio• lo u..
B/Mulr• OollU.,.
••
n,;, ".,,,_
s...,J,.
884
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
who were working in the bungalows occupied by the officers
were workinit in the homes of the officers. They were there!
fore, on domestic work. The work they were doing did not
cease to be domestic work because the bungalows belonged
not to the offici:n but to the appellant or because they were
under the control and orders of the appellant. Further, these
malis were on personal work. The word "personal" was
tu.d in the sense 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.
CIVIL Al>PELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 96 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the a.ward dated
December 7, 1959, of the Central Governm~nt
Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad in reference No. 42 of
1959.
S. 0. Banerjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the
appellant.
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent.
1962. January 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SARKAR, J.-The appellants, the Bhowra Kankanee Coal Co. Ltd., own the Bhowra and other
collieries.
On the Bhowra Colliery there are a.
num her of residential bungalows belonging to the
appellants oocupied 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 aft.Ar and maintain the gardens there.
A dispute a.rose between the a.ppella.nts 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, under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India referred this dilpute a.long with another with which we
a.re not concerned in thil case, for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal, Dhanba.d. The Points referred
concerning the di~ute abovementioned were in
these terms :
(1) Whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus provided in the Coal Minee Bonus
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
885
Scheme by the management of the Bhowra
Colliery from the following garden mazdoors/
malis is justified.
If not, to what relief are
they entitled and from what date?
(2) Whether the garden maztloors/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 date?
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 award.
Till 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 work·
men 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 tbe 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
1918
Emplfl1"'S in
&lolion lo tM
Blwwro Collifry
v.
Their Worknun
Sarllor J,
11111
g~,,.
R#olin to tJw
B•-• c.llU.J
v.
Tlr.ir ""*-
886 SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
empowered to frame a bonus scheme for the pay·
ment of bonus to the employees of coal mines, The
Central Government had framed a. Bonus Scheme
under this provision in 1948 and sinoe then the
previous owners had been paying the ma.lie employ·
ed 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 the position thus waa that these ma.lie
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 ma.Us. This
raised the industfri.I dispute which had led to tliis
appeal.
Paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme framed
under the Act, so far as relevant for this case, is in
the11e terms :
Paragraph 3. Except a.a hereinafter provided
every employee in a coal mine to which this
Scheme applies shall be eligible to qualify for
a. bonus,
ExoeptionB :-
.An empleyee in a. coal
mine shall not be entitled to a bonus under
the Scheme for the period during which-
(a.} .................................................. .
(b} he is employed as a ma.Ii, sweeper or
demestio servant on demestic and
persona.I work;
( c)
e • o o o o o o o o o o O Oo • • O O O • O 0 O o O' O O oO o 0 o' O O O O o o o o I' 0 o o o o 0
One of the questions raised in this appeal is whether
the bungs.low ma.lie were entitled to bonus under thill
para.graph. The appellants oontended oofore the
Tribunal that ma.lie a.s a. class were excepted from
the benefit of the Bonus Scheme by the provision
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
887
in exception lb) in this paragraph. They further
contended in the alt<'rnati ve that the~e malis were
excepted in any event because they were malis employed on domestic and ·personal work within the
meaning of the exception. The Tribunal rejected
these contentions of the appellants and held (a) that
these malis were entitlPd to bonus under paragraph
3 of the agreement of January 14, 1955 and (b) that
they were not employed on dome.stic and personal
work and were therefore not within the exception.
For these reasons the Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the bonus by the appellants was not
justified.
It is not clear on what ground the Tribunal
held that the malis were entitled to bonus under
paragraph 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, HJ55, 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.
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 t.he
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 thi8 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
uncler the Bonus Scheme.
1962
Employers tn
Relation le. the
Bhowra Collilry
Vo
Their W01kmlll
Sarkar J.
tHI
-
~·"'
~,..,.,
....... c.11;,,,
••
n.;, w .. 1 ....
s.t.J.
ses
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
We think that the appellants' contention is
well foundt,'<l..
What had been referred was the
question "whether the withdrawal of the benefit
of bonus provided in the Coe.I Mines Bonus Scheme
.. .... is justified". Un the language of the order
of reference it seems to us that the dispute referred
WM as to the right as provided in the Bonus Scheme and not as to any othe.r right. This also was
the workmen's oa.se before the Tribunal as a.ppoe.rs
from its written statement filed there.
In the
statement of oase filed in this appeal also, the
respondent took the same position. We therefore
think that if the Tribunal had held that the ma.lie
were entitled to tho bonus under the agreement of
January 14,
1955
independ~ntly of the Bonus
Sch~me it had exceeded its jurisdiction and its
a.ward cannot be upheld.
The question still remains &a to whether on
a pro per construction of paragraph 3 of the Bonus
Scheme these inalis had any right to bonus. That
was undubita.bly the question referred to the Tribu.
n&I.
The words requiring construction a.re "on
domestic and persona.I work". The Tribunal held
that ma.lie working in bungalows belonging to the
appellants were not working for the home or
household of privat~ persons or individuals and
were therefore not on domestic work. It also held
that &a the malis work under the direction and
control of the appellants and were liable to be
tre.ll8ferred from one bungalow to another or to some
other work they were not on persona.I work. We are
unable to accept this construction of para.graph 3 of
the Bonus Scheme. Domestic means
118 of the
home. We feel no doubt that the ma.lie who were
working in the bungalows occupied by the officers
were working in the home of the office111. They
were, therefore, on domestic work. The work
they were doing would not cease to be domestic
work because tho bungalows belonged not to the
officel'll but to the appellants. Whether a work
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
889
is domestic or not would depend on its nature.
Suppo~e 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 mali was working not under the orders of tho 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 difference. 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 malls 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 iliem. It may be that malis so 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 mali is on domestic
work or not would depend on the moture 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.
We further feel no difficulty in holding that
EmployfTJ ia
lltlation to th.
Bhowra Oalli11')
v.
Tluir Worlnm
Barkat J.
1962
E,,,~sin
Relation 14 tAt
Bh0W1a Collin.1
\'.
TJ.,ir Wor4:mtn
Se1Ur J.
I96Z
J-ry 30.
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
these malis were on persona.I work.
The word
"persona.I" is obviously used in the Bt'nce of work
for an individual as distinguished from work for
the Coal mine as a.n institution. These malis were
undoubtedly working for the officers as individuals.
ThereCore they were on persona.I
work.
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 ruference does not raise any question as
to whether the malis were entitled to bonus apart
from the Ronus ::icbeme, it is unnecessary for us to
ex presa any opinion on that question and we do
not do so.
The result is that this appeal is allowed and
we set aside the award of the Tribunal in so far as
it is concerned with the two points of dispute earlier set out which had been referred to it. \\·e do
not think it a fit ca.so to make any order for
cos ta.
Appe,al allowe.d.
GIRJA SHANKAR KASH! HAM
v.
THE GUJABAT SPlNNING &
WEAVING CO. LTD.
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKA!! and K. :N'.
WANC!tOO, ,TJ.)
lndu.tria/ Dilpuk-Erclu8ive right
of Reprt3entalive
Union to repreaent emplnyee•-Bomhay IndU81rtal Relatinns Act
(Xlo/ 1947) ••, 27A, J2, JJ, 42 (4).
The Gujarat Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., closed its
business on May 14, 1953, and •old its asscrs to Tarun Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. The old company had discharged all
its workmen when it closed its business.
The new company
re·started the business after a week an<l took in its service the
workmen of the old rompany.
When the closure took place
a dispute was pending hetween the old company and its
v.·orkmen lvith respect to bonus.
l'hc ·rextile Labour Associa·
tion, which is a Representative Union of the textile wockers in
the city of Ahmedabad, filed an application before the Labour