# M/S. BURN & CO. LTD. & OTHERS v. THEIR EMPLOYEES

- **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 423
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1957-04-15
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JumsmoTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 195 and 196 of 1959
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. W Anchoo, K. c. DAS GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-burn-co-ltd-others-v-their-employees-1709
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Incentive bonus-Scheme-E~clusion of
clerical and subordinate staff-Propriety-Power· of Industrial
Tribunal.
There can be no doubt from the point of view of Economics
that the clerical and subordinate staff of an industry like its'
manual workers contribute to its production and there can,
therefore, be no reason for exciuding them wholly from the benefits of a scheme of incentive bonus.
The fact that the clerical
staff are paid dearness allowance at a higher scale can be no
reason for their exclusion.
'
(1) [1956] 30 I.T.R. 388.
Kusumben.
.D. Mahadevia ·
v.
Commissioner of
Income-tax,
Bombay
H idayatullah J.
r960
March30.
•,
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
r960
Where, as in the instant case, the company had already
introduced a scheme of incentive bonus for the inajority of its
Burn & Co. Ltd. workmen, there could be no reason why the Industrial Tribunal
"·
should ·not be able to extend that scheme to the clerical and
Their Employees subordinate staff.
M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1959]
Supp. z S.C.R. rorz, considered.
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsmoTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
195 and 196 of 1959.
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated
April 15, 1957, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal, in Case No. VIII-7 of 1956.
B. Sen, P. K. Ghakravarty and B. N. Ghosh, for the
appellants (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and respondents (in
C. A. No. 196 of 59).
N. G. Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and
appellants (in C. A. No. 196 of 59).
•
1960. March 30. Tho Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Wanchoo ].
WANCHOO, J.-These are two appeals by special
leave against the same award of the Third Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal and shall be disposed of by this
judgment.
Appeal No. 195 is by Messrs. Burn and
Co. Limited (hereinafter called the company) and
Appeal ·No. 196 is by t.he workmen of Messrs. Burn
and Co. Limited (hereinafter called the workmen).
There were disputes between the company and the
workmen on various matters, which were referred to
the tribunal for adjudication. Of these disputes, only
two now survive in the two appeals. The company's
appeal is with respect to that part of the award which
deals with incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff while the workmen's appeal is with respect
to that part of the award which deals with the ca8h
benefit of Annas eight per head per working day for
the period the canteen was not in operation.
We shall first take up the company's appeal. The
company has introduced incentive bonus for manual
workers including Sarkars and Checkers but there is
no provision for inceJ!tive bonus to the clerical and
subordinate staff.
The workmen therefore claimed
that these two categories should also be given incel)-
tive bonus like the manual workers and pointed out
' A
'
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
425
that in other concerns this was done. The company
z96o
resisted the claim on two grounds: (i) that the clerical Burn & Co. Ltd.
staff got what is known as the Bengal Chamber of
v.
Commerce dearness allowance, ·which is higher than Their Employees
the dearness allowance paid to the manual workers
and (ii) that the clerical staff and the subordinate
Wanchoo J.
staff do not actually produce anything and if they
are given incentive bonus it will mean that they would
be paid on the production of others, namely, the
manual workers.
The tribunal was of the view that the fact that the
clerks got the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness
allowance was no reason for their .total exclusion from
the benefit of the incentive bonus scheme. It also
pointed out that the subordinate staff did not get the
Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance and
there was no difference between their dearness allowance and the dearness allowance of the manual
workers. Further the tribunal was conscious of the
fact that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do
not directly produce goods but that in its op

## Text

....
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
423
were all decisions of the same Court, and arose in
different circumstances. In two of them, the question
was wide enough to take in a fine of reasoning not.
adopted by the Tribunal, and in the third, the question was widened by deleting a reference to a section,
when another section was also material. They were
not cases where the issues of law as decided by the
Tribunal and the High Court were entirely different,
which is the case here. The Punjab High Court has
taken a contrary view in Mash Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1 ).
For the reasons given above, we are of opinion that
theHigh Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going outside
the point of law decided by the Tribunal and deciding
a different point of law. The order of the High
Court will, therefore, be set aside, and the case -will
be remitted to the High Court to decide the question
framed by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that both
the assessee and the Commissioner pointed out the
anomaly to the : High Court and the question was
reframed in spite of this, the costs of this appeal shall
be costs in the reference to be heard by the High
Court, and will abide the result.
Appeal allowed.
Case remitted.
M/S. BURN & CO. LTD. & OTHERS
v.
THEIR EMPLOYEES.
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. W ANCHOO and
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Incentive bonus-Scheme-E~clusion of
clerical and subordinate staff-Propriety-Power· of Industrial
Tribunal.
There can be no doubt from the point of view of Economics
that the clerical and subordinate staff of an industry like its'
manual workers contribute to its production and there can,
therefore, be no reason for exciuding them wholly from the benefits of a scheme of incentive bonus.
The fact that the clerical
staff are paid dearness allowance at a higher scale can be no
reason for their exclusion.
'
(1) [1956] 30 I.T.R. 388.
Kusumben.
.D. Mahadevia ·
v.
Commissioner of
Income-tax,
Bombay
H idayatullah J.
r960
March30.
•,
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960]
r960
Where, as in the instant case, the company had already
introduced a scheme of incentive bonus for the inajority of its
Burn & Co. Ltd. workmen, there could be no reason why the Industrial Tribunal
"·
should ·not be able to extend that scheme to the clerical and
Their Employees subordinate staff.
M/s. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1959]
Supp. z S.C.R. rorz, considered.
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsmoTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
195 and 196 of 1959.
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated
April 15, 1957, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal, in Case No. VIII-7 of 1956.
B. Sen, P. K. Ghakravarty and B. N. Ghosh, for the
appellants (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and respondents (in
C. A. No. 196 of 59).
N. G. Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 195 of 59) and
appellants (in C. A. No. 196 of 59).
•
1960. March 30. Tho Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Wanchoo ].
WANCHOO, J.-These are two appeals by special
leave against the same award of the Third Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal and shall be disposed of by this
judgment.
Appeal No. 195 is by Messrs. Burn and
Co. Limited (hereinafter called the company) and
Appeal ·No. 196 is by t.he workmen of Messrs. Burn
and Co. Limited (hereinafter called the workmen).
There were disputes between the company and the
workmen on various matters, which were referred to
the tribunal for adjudication. Of these disputes, only
two now survive in the two appeals. The company's
appeal is with respect to that part of the award which
deals with incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff while the workmen's appeal is with respect
to that part of the award which deals with the ca8h
benefit of Annas eight per head per working day for
the period the canteen was not in operation.
We shall first take up the company's appeal. The
company has introduced incentive bonus for manual
workers including Sarkars and Checkers but there is
no provision for inceJ!tive bonus to the clerical and
subordinate staff.
The workmen therefore claimed
that these two categories should also be given incel)-
tive bonus like the manual workers and pointed out
' A
'
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
425
that in other concerns this was done. The company
z96o
resisted the claim on two grounds: (i) that the clerical Burn & Co. Ltd.
staff got what is known as the Bengal Chamber of
v.
Commerce dearness allowance, ·which is higher than Their Employees
the dearness allowance paid to the manual workers
and (ii) that the clerical staff and the subordinate
Wanchoo J.
staff do not actually produce anything and if they
are given incentive bonus it will mean that they would
be paid on the production of others, namely, the
manual workers.
The tribunal was of the view that the fact that the
clerks got the Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness
allowance was no reason for their .total exclusion from
the benefit of the incentive bonus scheme. It also
pointed out that the subordinate staff did not get the
Bengal Chamber of Commerce dearness allowance and
there was no difference between their dearness allowance and the dearness allowance of the manual
workers. Further the tribunal was conscious of the
fact that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do
not directly produce goods but that in its opinion was
no }ustification for their total exclusion, particularly
when other comparable concerns like the Indian Iron
1
and Steel Co. Ltd. at Burnpur, Bridge and Roof Co.
(India) Limited, Howrah, and Tatas were paying
incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff
also. It therefore ordered that the company should
extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical
and subordinate staff also and lay down the rates and
conditions for the same.
The main contention of the company before us is
that as the clerical staff and the ·subordinate staff
have no part in actual production they should not be
given any incentive bonus, particularly as their work
does not increase at all because of the increased production. It is, however, difficult to accept that there
will be no increase in the work of the clerical staff in
particular and also of the subordinate staff because
of higher production, though it may be accepted that
the increase 'may not be in proportion to the increase
of production. It is also true that the clerical staff
and the subordinate staff do not directly produce
goods like manual workers arid thatm~y be a reason
Bwrn b Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Employees
TVanchoo ].
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1960)
for treating them somewhat differently in the matter
of incentive bonus and that is what the tribunal seems
to have done, for it has directed the company to
extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical
and subordinate staff and to lay down the rates and
conditions of the same and has not said that exactly
the same rates and conditions should apply to the
clerical and subordinate staff as apply to the manual
workers.
But there can be nu doubt that economically speaking the clerical staff and. the subordinate
staff also take part in the production and there is no
reason therefore for excluding them altogether from
the scheme of incentive bonus. Besides, as the tribunal
has pointed out, in other comparable concerns incentive bonus is being paid to the clerical and subordinate
staff.
The fact that dearness allowance was paid to
the clerical staff at a higher scale is also, in our opinion, no reason for depriving them altogether of the
benefits of the incentive bonus scheme.
It is also urged on behalf of the company that the
introduction of incentive bonus is a management
function and the tribunal should not impose it on the
management and reference in this connection has been
made to Messrs. Titaghur Paper Mills Go. Ltd. v. Their
Workmen (1). In the present case, however, the incentive bonus scheme has already been introduced by the
company for the major part of its workmen and all
that is now asked for is that the benefit of the scheme
should be extended to the remainder of the workmen.
This prayer is, in our opinion, very different from
asking a tribunal to impose an incentive bonus scheme
for the first time in a concern.
We can see no reason
why where an incentive bonus is in force in a concern
for the majority of its workmen, the tribunal should
not be able to extend the same to the remainder of
the workmen.
We therefore see no reason to interfere with the
order of the tribunal in this behalf.
Turning now to the appeal of the workmen with
respect to eight a.nnas tiffin allowance during the
period the canteen was not working, it is enough to
say that this matter was examined at length by the
\I} [1959] Supp, 2 S.C.R. 101._
-
-
-
,<
...
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
427
tribunal. It has dealt with the history relating to
this tiffin allowance and exhaustively considered all
the points raised on behalf of the.workmen. Nothing
has been brought to our notice which would induce
us to interfere with the considered order of the tribunal in this behalf.
All the points that Srl Chatterjee
has raised on behalf of the workmen have been dealt
with by the tribunal and the conclusion it has reached is
that having regard to the circumstances, the workmen
were not eligible to the tiffin allowance of annas eight
per head per working day. All that we need say is that
the correspondence between the workmen and the
company shows that though the workmen were keen
on the provision of a canteen before the tiffin allowance
was granted by the award dated July 24, 1953, their
keenness disappeared after the award. The company
seems to have taken steps even before the award to
start a canteen and pursued the matter vigorously
after the award; but the workmen started objecting
to the arrangements made and some of the objections
were fantastic. It seems that having been given the
tiffin allowance they preferred to have it rather than
go to the canteen. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the conclusion·of the tribunal is correct and
there is no reason for interference.
The appeals are hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances we pass no ord_er as to costs. ·
Appeals dismissed.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
•
v.
KHUSHI RAM
( JAFER IMAM and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Magistrate empowered to impose sentence provided-Commitment under impression of not being so empoweredTrial by Court of Session on such commitment-Validity-Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, I954 (37 of r954), ss. 7, I6 and 2I.-Code
of Criminal Procedure, r898 (V of r898), ss. 32, 207 and 347.
The respondent was prosecuted for offences under s. 7 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Magistrate found
the offences proved and he further found that the respondeut had
•
Burn 0- Co. Ltd.
v.
Their Employees
Wanchoo ].
April I.