# SHELAT v. BHARGAVA AND C. A

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 140
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 256-Z67 of 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shelat-v-bhargava-and-c-a-4093
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

140
CHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO. LTD. A.
1·.
RAMESWAR AND ORS.
A 11gust 8, 1967
SHELAT, V.
BHARGAVA AND C. A.
VAIDlAL!NGAM, JJ .]
[J. M.
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme !let, 1948 (46 of 8 ·
1948)-Bonus under the Scheme-Jurisdiction of Labour Court un·
der s. 33C of Industrial Disputes .4.ct-Limitation for app[icationsEligibility for bonus.
Industrial Disputes .4.ct, 1947 (14 of 1947) s. 33C Bonus under Coal
Mius Provident Fund and Bonus Sche1ne A.ct-Jurisdiction of
Labour Court-Limitation for application.
The respondents-workml>ll filed applications in
1962
claiming C
bonus under the Scheme framed by the Central Government under
the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 and
railway fares and leave wages from 1948 onwards. The Labour
Couri. Dhanbad aJ!owed their claims under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. which, in appeals to this Court, the appel·
!ant-Company challengeq, contending, that (1) the Labour Court
had no jurisdiction to try these applhtions under S. 33C(2); (ii) the D
applications were barred by limctation prescribed by the bonus
Scheme and/or due to !aches. and (iii) under the said Scheme the
workmen were not entitled to bonus as they were employed as domastic servants.
HELD: The appeals must fail.
(!) The right to the benefit which is sought to be computed
must be an existing one. that is to say. aiready adjudicated upon or E
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-sec. 2 of s. 33C is wider than that of sub-s 1.
and the sul>-section is not confined to cases ari~:ng under an award
settlement or under the prOIVisions of Chapter VA there is no reason
to hold that a benefit provided by statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary under such statute or
s. 33C(2), cannot fall within sub-section 2. Consequently, the benefit F'
provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines ProvideBt
Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remained to be computed
must falJ under sub-section 2 and the Labour Court therefore bad
ju.r.isdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in re9'-
pect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial
workman and h;s employer [144B-Dl.
Punjab National Bank Ldt. v. Kharb.inda [1962] Supp, 2 S.C.R. G
977 Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan fl964l 3 S . .C.R. 140. and
Bombay Gas Co., Ltd. v. Gopa! Bhiva f!9641 3 S.C.R. 709 relied en.
(ii) There is no justification for inducting a period of nm:tation
provided in the Limitat'on Act into the prov1sions of s. 33C(2) which
de not lay dO\\'n any limitation. It is a matter of some significance
t!:at though the legislature amended sectlon 33C by Act 36 of 1964
and introduced limitation in that Sectfon, it did so bv means of a pro- H
viso only in respect of claims made under sub-sec. 1 but did not provide any such limitation for claims under sub-sec. 2. [144H-145B].
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709 relid
on.
' •
MIXIXG ENGI'-'EER V. RA,IESWAR (Shela~ J.)
141
l
The period of three years of limitation provided for by clause (3)
of S. 9A of the Bonus Scheme applies to applications for payment by
the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner from the deposit made
in the Government treasury and has no application to claims under
S. 33C(2) which makes no provision for limttation. fl45D-El.
(iii) Two conditions are necessazy to render an employee ineligible for Bonus under S. 1 of the Bonus Scheme: (1) that he is emp.
B Joyed as a ma!i, a sweeper or a domestic servan~. and (2) that he
performs during the relevant period domestic or personal work. To
render an employee ineligible for bonus under this exception both
the capacity and the nature of work are relevant factors. It follows
that even though an employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper- or
a domestic servant if he does non-domestic or non-personal work
he

## Text

140
CHIEF MINING ENGINEER EAST INDIA COAL CO. LTD. A.
1·.
RAMESWAR AND ORS.
A 11gust 8, 1967
SHELAT, V.
BHARGAVA AND C. A.
VAIDlAL!NGAM, JJ .]
[J. M.
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme !let, 1948 (46 of 8 ·
1948)-Bonus under the Scheme-Jurisdiction of Labour Court un·
der s. 33C of Industrial Disputes .4.ct-Limitation for app[icationsEligibility for bonus.
Industrial Disputes .4.ct, 1947 (14 of 1947) s. 33C Bonus under Coal
Mius Provident Fund and Bonus Sche1ne A.ct-Jurisdiction of
Labour Court-Limitation for application.
The respondents-workml>ll filed applications in
1962
claiming C
bonus under the Scheme framed by the Central Government under
the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 and
railway fares and leave wages from 1948 onwards. The Labour
Couri. Dhanbad aJ!owed their claims under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. which, in appeals to this Court, the appel·
!ant-Company challengeq, contending, that (1) the Labour Court
had no jurisdiction to try these applhtions under S. 33C(2); (ii) the D
applications were barred by limctation prescribed by the bonus
Scheme and/or due to !aches. and (iii) under the said Scheme the
workmen were not entitled to bonus as they were employed as domastic servants.
HELD: The appeals must fail.
(!) The right to the benefit which is sought to be computed
must be an existing one. that is to say. aiready adjudicated upon or E
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-sec. 2 of s. 33C is wider than that of sub-s 1.
and the sul>-section is not confined to cases ari~:ng under an award
settlement or under the prOIVisions of Chapter VA there is no reason
to hold that a benefit provided by statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary under such statute or
s. 33C(2), cannot fall within sub-section 2. Consequently, the benefit F'
provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines ProvideBt
Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remained to be computed
must falJ under sub-section 2 and the Labour Court therefore bad
ju.r.isdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in re9'-
pect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial
workman and h;s employer [144B-Dl.
Punjab National Bank Ldt. v. Kharb.inda [1962] Supp, 2 S.C.R. G
977 Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan fl964l 3 S . .C.R. 140. and
Bombay Gas Co., Ltd. v. Gopa! Bhiva f!9641 3 S.C.R. 709 relied en.
(ii) There is no justification for inducting a period of nm:tation
provided in the Limitat'on Act into the prov1sions of s. 33C(2) which
de not lay dO\\'n any limitation. It is a matter of some significance
t!:at though the legislature amended sectlon 33C by Act 36 of 1964
and introduced limitation in that Sectfon, it did so bv means of a pro- H
viso only in respect of claims made under sub-sec. 1 but did not provide any such limitation for claims under sub-sec. 2. [144H-145B].
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709 relid
on.
' •
MIXIXG ENGI'-'EER V. RA,IESWAR (Shela~ J.)
141
l
The period of three years of limitation provided for by clause (3)
of S. 9A of the Bonus Scheme applies to applications for payment by
the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner from the deposit made
in the Government treasury and has no application to claims under
S. 33C(2) which makes no provision for limttation. fl45D-El.
(iii) Two conditions are necessazy to render an employee ineligible for Bonus under S. 1 of the Bonus Scheme: (1) that he is emp.
B Joyed as a ma!i, a sweeper or a domestic servan~. and (2) that he
performs during the relevant period domestic or personal work. To
render an employee ineligible for bonus under this exception both
the capacity and the nature of work are relevant factors. It follows
that even though an employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper- or
a domestic servant if he does non-domestic or non-personal work
he will be entitled to bonus and WQUid lose his night to it only during
c
that period that he does domestic or personal work. fl46B-C].
Bhowra Colliery v. Its Workmen, f19621 L.L.J. 378, relied on.
on· the evidence, the respondents were employed in the colliery,
they. \Vere not assigned the exclusive duty of supplying v:ater at the
residence of the junior officers but they supplied water at certain
pit heads. So the exception did not apply.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 256-Z67
of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated April 6, 1964
of the Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad in
Applications L.C. Nos. 237 /245, 228 /247, 238 I 250, 230/ 252. 239; 254,
229 /255 of 1962.
E
H. R. Gokhale and D. N. Gupta. for the appellant (in all 1be
appeals).
Janardan Sharma, for the respondents (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.She_lat, J.-These appeals
by
special
leave anse out of
'F 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
G at Dhanbad allowed their claim under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Mr. Gokhale for the appellant-company challenged the correctness. of the Labour Court's decision and raised the following con·
tent10ns: -
~
. ()) that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try these apB phcat1ons under s. 33C (2):
(a) because s. 3JC(2) contemplates recovery of money
payable under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act only
142
8Ul'BEllE COURT REPORTS
[1968] 1 S.C.B.
and not under any other statute or scheme framed thereunder;
(b) that under s. 33C(2) the benefit capable of being
computed in terms of money is a non-monetary benefit and
not a claim for money it."<llf; and
(c) that the proceedings under section 33C(2) being in
the nature of execution proceedings substantial questions
between an employer and his employee cannot be adjudic$d by the Labour Court under this section;
.
(~that in any case these applications were barred by limitation pre~ribed by the said bonus Scheme and/ or due to !aches on
the part ,of the respondents;
(3) tkat under the said Scheme the respondents are not entitled
to bonus .as they were employed as domestic servants and were
during the .relevant period performing domestic and personal work;
and
B
c
(4) that the direction to pay bonus for the period prior to
the dates on which these respondents were employed was in- D
valid.
The contention as to jurisdiction of the Labour Court depends
on the true construction of s. 33C(21 as it stood in 1962 when these
applications were filed and before its amendment by Act 36 of
1964. Section 33C(2) has so far been the subject-matter of decision
by this Court in three cases, viz .. Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. 8 .
Kharbanda('), Central Bank of India v. Rajagopa/an(') and Bcnrtbay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Blrfra(').
The following propositions on the question as to the scope of
~. 33C(2) are deducible from these three decisions:-
(1) The legisla.tive history indicates that the legislature, after providing broadly for the investigation and
r
settlement of disputes on the basis of collective bargaining, recognised the need of individual workmen of a
speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights
and therefore inserted s. 33A in 1950 and s. 33'C in 1956.
These two sections illustrate cases in which individual
workmen can enforce their rights without having to take
recourse to s. l 0(1) and without having to depend on
G
their union to espouse their case.
(2) In view of this history two considerations arc
relevant while construing the scope of s. 33C. Where
industrial disputes arise between workmen acting collectively and their employers such disputes must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act, as for
B
(') [1962] Supp, 2 S.C.R. 977.
(') [1964) 3 S.C.R. 709.
(') [1964) 3 S.C.R. 140.
B
,.
c
D
B
G
lllNING ENGINEER f. RAMESWAR (Shelat, J.)
instance under s. 10(1). But having regard to the legislative policy to provide a speedy remedy to individual
workmen for enforcing their existing rights. it would not
be reasonable to exclude their existing rights sought to be
implemented by individual workmen. Therefore though
in determining the scope of s. 33C care should be taken
not to exclude cases which legitimately fall within its
purview, cases which fall, for instance under s. 10(1),
·cannot be brought under s. 33C;
(3) Section 33C which is in terms similar to those in
s. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act,.
1950 is a provision in the nature of an executing provi-·
sion;
(4) Section 33COr applies to cases where money is.
due to a. workman under an a ward or settlement or under
Chapter VA of the Act already calculated and ascertained and therefore there is no dispute about its computation. But sub-section 2 applies both to non-monetary as
wi:ll as monetary benefits. In the case of monetary benefit
it applies where such benefit though due is not calculated
and there is a dispute a~out its calculation;
($) Seetion 33C(2) takes within its purview cases of
workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are
entitled should be computed in terms of money even
though the right to the benefit on which their claim is
based is disputed by their employers .. It is open to the
Labour Court to interpret the ·award or settlement on
whicli .the workmen's right rests.
(6) The fact that the words of limitation used in
s. 20(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal)
Act,
1950 are omitted ins. 33C(2).shows that the scope·
of s. 33C(2) is wider than that of s. 33C(l). Therefore.
whereas sub-section 1 is confined to claims arising under
an award or settlement or Chapter VA, claims which can
be entertained under sub-section 2 are not so· confined
to those under an award, settlement or Chapter VA.
(7) Though the coun did not indicat~ which cases
other than those under sub-section 1 would fall under
sub-section 2, it pointed out illustrative cases which would
not f~Jl under sub-section 2, viz., cases which would appropriately be adjudicated under s. JO(!) or claims which
have already been the subject-matter of settlement to·
which ss. 18 and 19 would 'apply.
(3) Since proceedings under s. 33C(2) are analogous
to execution proceedings arid the Labour Court called
upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed
by a workman is in such cases in the position of an executing court, .the Labour Court like the executing court
143'
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968) l s.c.R.
in execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil
A.
Procedure, is competent under s. 33Cl2) to interpret the
award or settlement where the benefit is claimed under
such award or settlement and it would be open to it to
consider the plea of nullity where the award is made without jurisdiction.
·
It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be B
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-sec. 2 is wider than that of subsec. 1 and the sub-section is not confined to cases arising under an
award. settlement or
under the provisions of Chapter VA,
there is no reason to hold that a benefit provided by a statute or a C
Scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary
under such statute or s. 33C(2), cannot fall within sub-section 2.
Consequently, the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made
under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act,
1948 which remains to be computed must fall under sub-section
2 and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain D
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, fail.
E
These applications were made in 1962 though they related to
claims for the years commencing from 1948 and onwards.
The
contention therefore was that part .of these claims, at any rate,
must be held to be barred either by limitation or by reason of
!aches on the part of the workmen. The answer to this contention
is clearly provided in the case of Bombay Gas Co.(') where a dis- F
tinction was drawn between considerations which would prevail in
an industrial adjlldication and those which must prevail in a case
filed under a statutory provision such •as s. 33C(2).
This court
pointed out there that whereas an industrial dispute is entertained
. on grounds of social justice and therefore a Tribunal would in
such a case take into consideration factors such as delay or !aches, G
such considerations are irrelevant to claims made under a statutory provision unless such provision lays down any period of
limitation. The Court held that there is no justification in inducting
a period of limitation provided in the Limitation Act into the provisions of s. 33C(2) which do not lay down any limitation and
that such a provision can only be made by legislature if it thought
fit and not by the court on an analogy or any other such consideration. It is a matter of some significance that though the legislature
('} [1964) 3 S.C.R. 709.
Bo
..
..
ll!NING ENGlliDll V, R.UIESWAB. (She/at, J.)
145
A amended section 33C by Act 36 of 1964 and introduced limitation
in the section, .it did so by means of a proviso only in respect of
claims made under sub-sec. I but did not provide any limitation
for claims under sub-section 2. In view of this fa.ct and the decision
in Bombay Gas Company's easel') Mr. Gokhale conceded that
he could not press the contention that the present claims were
B barred by limitation or !aches.
Some reliance however was sought to be placed on cl. 3 of
s. 9A of the Bonus Scheme. Section 9(A) 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 nn·
claimed for six months after such tender, he is required to have it
C 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 cltalan of such deposit shall be sent
within the time set out therein to the Coal Mines Provident Fund
D 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 paymP,,t 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
E provision for limitation
The contention that the respondents-workmen, though admit·
tedly 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
F junior officers of the Company throughout the relevant period, is
also not tenable. The relevant portion of s. 1 of the Bonus Scheme
relied on by the Company reads as follows: -
"I. Gass of employees eligible to qualify for bon_us
-Except as hereinafter provided, every employee in a -
coal mine to. which this Scheme applies shall be eligible
G
to qualify for bonus.
Exceptions-An employee in a coal mine shall not
be entitled to a bonus under the Scheme for the period
during which-
(a) ......................... ..
B
(b) he is employed as a mali, sweeper or domestic
servant on domestic or personal work ...... ".
<'> [I964J a s.c.R. 709 ..
KfP{}l)ISCI-12
.
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968) 1 S.C.R.
Under this section every employee of the Company except as there- A
in provided is eligible for bonus. The exception provides that a
person though an employee in a colliery is not entitled to bonus
inter alia for the period during which he is employed as a mali,
sweeper or domestic servant on domestic and personal work. Two
conditions are therefore necessary to render an employee ineligible
for bonus : (!) that he is employed as a mali, a sweef)er or a
domestic servant and (21 that he performs during the relevant B
period domestic or personal work. To render an employee in·
-eligible for bonus under this exception both the capacity and the
nature of work are relevant factors. It follows that even though an
employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper or a domestic servant
if he does non-domestic or non-personal work he will be entitled
to bonus and would lose his right to it only during that period that ci
he does domestic or personal work. In Bhowra Colliery v. Its
Workmen(') this Court construed this very exception and held
that if the concerned workmen were employed and worked as
garden mazdoors and malis to look after the gardens attached to
the bungalows occupied by the ·Colliery officers they would not be
eligible for the bonus notwithstanding the fact that the bungalows D
were owned by the Colliery, the workmen were Colliery's employees and worked under the Company's orders and were liable
to be transferred from one job to another. Thus the employment
of a person as a mall, 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 apply. E
In view 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 a.nd carried out F
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 respondents 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 em- G
ployed in the colliery, that they were not assigned the exclt!sive
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 a.t certain points in the co1liery. In these circumstances the Labour Court was justified in corning to the conclu- H
sion that the exception did not apply.
(') [1962] L.L.J. 378.
MINING ENGINEER v. RAMESWAR (Shelal, J.)
147
A
The last contention which remains iv te consiu"11id ;,;;; ihai
the Labour Court was not right in ,awarding the claim of the
workmen in full, both as regards bonus and railway fores and
leave wages. According to the Company, none of these workmen
was in its employment in 1948, that they were appointed at
different dates and that they would at best be entitled to bonus
B 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 0f relief claimed· by the workmen both as
regards bonus as also the railway fares and leave wages.
The appeals are dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Y. P.