{"id":219091,"date":"1998-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998"},"modified":"2017-07-13T17:43:16","modified_gmt":"2017-07-13T12:13:16","slug":"the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: S.B.Majmudar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B.Majmudar, M.Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE DAILY PARTAP\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, HARYANA, Himachal Pradesh and Union Tereitory, Chandigarh\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/10\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.B.Majmudar, M.Jagannadha Rao\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
S.B.Majmudar, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth these appeals for special leave to appeal under
\nArticle 136 of the Constitution of  India  have\t brought  in
\nchallenge two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court
\nof  Punjab  &  Haryana\tat Chandigarh dismissing two Letters
\nPatent Appeals arising out of the decision  of\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge of the High Court who has considered identical
\nquestions of law.  Consequently,  both\tthese  appeals\twere
\nheard together.\t  Learned counsel for the respective parties
\nwere heard in support of their\tcases  and  thereafter\tboth
\nthese appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe common question which falls for consideration of
\nthis Court in these appeals is as to whether the  appellants
\nwhich\tare   carrying\ton  the\t business  of  printing\t and
\npublishing newspapers in the State of Punjab  at  Jallandhar
\nare  liable  to\t remit\tcontributions under Section 6 of the
\nEmployees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
\n1952 (for short the ‘Act’) to  the  authorities\t functioning
\nunder  the  Act\t along\twith the matching contributions from
\ntheir respective employees, so far as the  amounts  paid  by
\nthe appellants to their employees under identical schemes of
\nProduction Bonus are concerned.\t The learned Single Judge of
\nthe  High  Court in his impugned Judgment has taken the view
\nthat  the  said\t statutory  liability  is  foisted  on\t the
\nappellants.   By  summarily  dismissing\t the  Letters Patent
\nAppeals against the said  decision  of\tthe  learned  Single
\nJudge,\tthe  Division  Bench has confirmed the said view and
\nthat  is  how  the  appellants\tare  before  us\t  in   these
\nproceedings.   A  few relevant introductory facts deserve to
\nbe  noted  to  appreciate  the\tcommon\tgrievance   of\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  appellants\t were  carrying\t on  the business of
\nprinting of the newspapers in the city of Jallandhar in\t the
\nState of Punjab and circulating the same to their customers.
\nThey  were  alleged to have not remitted their contributions
\nalong with the share of their  concerned  employees  to\t the
\nextent\tof  the\t amounts  paid\tby  them for the period from
\nAugust, 1975 to March, 1976 by way of Production Bonus.\t The
\ncontention of  the  appellants\twas  that  as  the  disputed
\namounts\t were  paid  to\t the  concerned\t employees under the
\nrelevant Production Bonus Schemes they were  not  liable  to
\nremit  contributions  for  the\tsame as per Section 6 of the
\nAct.  On the basis of the said contention, they\t filed\twrit
\npetitions  earlier  against  the  aforesaid  demand  of\t the
\nauthorities before  the\t High  Court.\t In  the  said\twrit
\npetitions  filed in the year 1976, the then learned Advocate
\nGenera\tfor  the  State\t of  Haryana   appearing   for\t the
\nauthorities,   conceded\t before\t the  High  Court  that\t the
\nappellants were not required to deposit the  provident\tfund
\non  the\t Production  Bonus  and\t the  appellants may deposit
\nprovident fund only on “wages” as defined in  the  Act\tfrom
\nAugust,\t 1975  and  with  regard to the refund of the amount
\ndeposited in respect of Production Bonus, the appellants may
\napply to the respondent authorities, who, after giving\tthem
\nhearing, would\tdecide\tthe matter within three months.\t The
\nsaid decision of the High Court in both these writ petitions
\nmoved by the appellants were rendered on  19th\tJuly,  1976.
\nThereafter  the\t respondent  authorities gave hearing to the
\nappellants and ultimately took the view\t that  the  disputed
\namounts for which contributions were asked for under Section
\n6  of  the  Act\t from the appellants were part of the “basic
\nWages” and no such Production Bonus Scheme was\texisting  in
\nthe appellants’\t concerns.    Consequently, the claim of the
\nappellants for non-application of Section 6 of\tthe  Act  of
\nthese disputed\t amounts   was\t rejected.\tUnder  these
\ncircumstances, the appellants once again carried the matters
\nin writ\t petitions  before  the\t High  Court.\t Those\twrit
\npetitions  were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the
\nimpugned order which came in their turn to be  confirmed  by
\nthe  Division  Bench  in the Letters Patent Appeals as noted
\nearlier.\n<\/p>\n
RIVAL CONTENTION:\n<\/p>\n
\tShri  Ranjit  Kumar,   learned\t counsel   for\t the
\nappellants vehemently submitted that pursuant to the earlier
\norder  dated  19th  July,  1976\t of  the  High Court in writ
\npetitions the only inquiry which was to be conducted by\t the
\nauthorities  under  the Act was about the appropriate amount
\nof refund  to  be  given  to  the  appellants.\tThe  learned
\nAdvocate  General  for\tthe  State  of\tHaryana\t had clearly
\nconceded that the appellants were not  required\t to  deposit
\nsuch  provident\t fund  on Production Bonus and consequently,
\nthe  authorities had no\t jurisdiction  to  go  behind  these
\norders\tof  the High Court and decide the question on merits
\nonce again and held  that  the\tappellants  were  liable  to
\ndeposit\t the  provident fund amount on Production Bonus paid
\nby them to the workmen concerned. In the  alternative it was
\ncontended by the learned counsel  for  the  appellants\tthat
\neven  assuming\tthat  the  authorities\tcould  go  into this
\nquestion despite the order of  the  High  Court\t dated\t19th
\nJuly,  1976, the authorities had committed a patent error of
\nlaw in taking the view that the scheme in question was not a
\nProduction Bonus Scheme and that the  amounts  paid  by\t the
\nemployees  for\textra  work  rendered  by  the\tworkmen were
\ncovered by the definition of  “basic  wages”  under  Section
\n2(b)  and consequently Section 6 of the Act got attracted in
\nconnection with the  said  disputed  amounts  on  which\t the
\nauthorities   were  justified  in  seeking  transmission  of
\ncontribution  by  the\tappellants   along   with   matching
\ncontribution   by  the\tworkmen.  In  support  of  the\tsaid
\ncontention, learned counsel for\t the  appellants  vehemently
\nrelied upon a decision of the six member Bench of this Court
\nin  Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India,<\/a> (1963
\n(3) SCR 978) and tried to distinguish the ratio of  decision
\nof  this  Court in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. & Ors. vs. The
\nUnior of Indian & Ors. (1963 (3) SCR 995). It was  contended
\nthat  the  scheme in question was clearly a Production Bonus
\nScheme. That those workmen employed by\tthe  appellants\t who
\nhad put in more work than beyond the norms provided for them
\nand  for  which\t no  action  could  have  been\ttaken by the
\nManagement if the workmen had not carried out the extra load
\nof work, had been paid for this voluntary extra\t work.\tSuch
\npayment\t  for\textra  work  was  directly  linked  up\twith
\nproduction and was  a Production  Incentive  Bonus  squarely
\ncovered by the excepted category of the definition of “basic
\nwages” under Section 2(b) of the Act. He also submitted that
\nin  order  to  become  a  Production Bonus Scheme it was not
\nnecessary that all the workmen were uniformly paid bonus  if
\nthey  worked  more  than  what\twas  required of them by the
\nnorms. Even if amounts of bonus varied with the\t quantum  of
\nextra  work rendered by workmen concerned, such bonus scheme
\nstill remained a genuine incentive Production Bonus Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  reply,  learned  counsel for the respondent Shri
\nHarish Chander, submitted that the Act is a beneficial piece
\nof legislation.\t It is welfare measure under  which  workmen
\nbelonging  to the lower strata of society and suffering from
\neconomic distress and penury are enabled by the\t legislature
\nto contribute towards a compulsory saving scheme wherein the
\nemployer  would\t give  matching\t contribution and the amount
\ncredited  to  the  workment’s  account\tmaintained  by\t the
\nauthorities  under  the\t Act would be available for them for
\nbeing available to meet the needs of  their  families  after
\ntheir  superannuation  or  even otherwise during employment.
\nThese amounts will also be available to them to draw upon by
\ntaking loans on the basis of the amounts standing  to  their
\ncredit, for meeting social obligations like marriage or even
\nmeeting\t  medical   expenses  and  other  pressing  economic
\nnecessities.  Thus, the Act envisages a protective  economic
\ncover  for  the\t rainy\tday  so\t far  as  these\t workmen are
\nconcerned.  Such a welfare legislation should  be  construed
\nliberally and  not  in\ta restrictive manner.  In support of
\nthis contention, reliance was placed  on  the  decisions  of
\nthis  Court  in\t Regional  Provident  Fund  Commissioner vs.
\nS.D.College, Hoshiarpur & Ors.<\/a>\t(1996(5) SCC 522).  Reliance
\nwas also placed on the definition of  the  term\t “bonus”  as
\nfound  in  Corpus  Juris  Secundum,  Volume  11 at page 515.
\nLearned counsel for the respondent  further  submitted\tthat
\nthe High Court had taken the view that the Scheme pressed in
\nservice by the appellants was not a genuine Production Bonus
\nScheme\tbut  was  merely  an  attempt  to  get\tout  of\t the
\nprovisions of Section 6 of the Act so far  as  the  disputed
\namounts were  concerned.    He\talso  submitted that earlier
\norders of High Court did  not  deprive\tthe  authorities  of
\nstatutory  jurisdiction\t to decide the real nature of the so
\ncalled Production Bonus schemes.   That\t the  concession  of
\nlearned Advocate General has to be considered in its correct
\nperspective.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, the
\nfollowing points arise for out determination:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tWhether\t in  view  of  earlier\tdecision of the High
\nCourt dated 19th July,\t1976  based  on\t the  concession  of
\nlearned\t Advocate  General,  Haryana,  the  authorities\t had
\njurisdiction to decide the question on merits or whether the
\nauthorities were bound to consider the only limited question
\nof computation of appropriate refund amount to\tbe  paid  to
\nthe  appellants\t so  far  as the disputed amounts which were
\nalready paid under  protest  by\t the  appellant\t authorities
\nalong  with  matching  contributions of their employees were
\nconcerned;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIf yes, whether the appellants were liable to  remit
\nunder Section 6 of the Act contributions on the amounts paid
\nby  them  to  the  employees  concerned under the Production
\nBonus Scheme as promulgated by them at\tthe  relevant  time;
\nand<\/p>\n
3.\tWhat final order?\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  shall  now\tproceed\t to  consider  these  points
\nseriatim.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 1:\n<\/p>\n
\tAs   noted   earlier,  it  is  true  that  when\t the
\nappellants in the first instance filed writ petitions in the
\nHigh Court, it was contended by\t them  that  the  Production
\nBonus amounts paid by them to their workmen were not part of
\nthe  “basic Wages” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.
\nIt is also true that they contended before the High Court in
\nthose proceedings that under some mistake of  law  they\t had
\nalready\t deposited  provident  fund  of\t the  employees with
\nrespect to Production Bonus also.  That they  were  entitled
\nto appropriate\trefund\tof  the\t said amount.  It is equally
\ntrue that when such a contention was  raised  by  them,\t the
\nlearned\t Advocate  General,  Haryana,  who  appeared at that
\nstage on behalf of the respondent authorities, conceded that
\nthe appellants were not required to deposit  provident\tfund
\non  the Production Bonus and they may deposit provident fund
\nonly on the “wages” as defined in the Act from August,\t1975
\nand  that  for\tappropriate  refund  they  may\tapply to the
\nrespondent who will give them hearing and decide the matter.
\nLearned Advocate General also assured  that  the  appellants
\nwill  have  to\tpay  refund  of\t the  provident\t fund to the
\nemployees to the extent that such amounts were deducted from
\nthe salaries of the  employees\tcovered\t by  the  Production
\nBonus scheme.\t The  said assurance of the learned Advocate
\nGeneral\t was  accepted\tby  the\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants   and   that\t is  how  the  appellants  moved  an
\napplication for refund before the authorities.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, it has to be kept in view that the Advocate
\nGeneral’s concession was on a question of law as to  whether
\nthe  Scheme  which  was\t put  forward  by  the appellants as
\nProduction Bonus Scheme was covered by Section 6  read\twith
\nSection 2(b)  or  not.\tSuch a concession on the question of
\nlaw cannot bind the authorities for all\t time  to  come\t but
\neven   apart  from  this  aspect  of  the  matter  the\tsaid
\nconcession has to be considered as a whole.    In  the\tsame
\nbreath while conceding that the appellants were not required
\nto  contribute\ton  Production\tBonus  amounts,\t the learned
\nAdvocate General made it clear that  they  have\t to  deposit
\nprovident  fund\t on  the  “wages”  as  defined under the Act
\nmeaning thereby the question whether  the  disputed  amounts
\nfor  which  refund  was to be claimed by the appellants form
\nthe authorities fell within the definition of “wages”  under
\nthe Act or not.\t It was a live issue which had to be decided
\nby the authorities in proposed refund applications.  Learned
\nAdvocate  General  had not given an absolute concession that
\nthe appellants were not liable to contribute any part of the
\ndisputed amount towards provident fund\tand  that  it  never
\nfell within the definition of the word “wages”.\t Under these
\ncircumstances,\twhen  the applications for refund were moved
\nby the appellants they were required to be decided on  their
\nwon merits.    The statement of the learned Advocate General
\nbefore the High Court  had  no\tadverse\t effect\t on  such  a
\nstatutory jurisdiction\tof  the\t authorities.  The merits of
\nrefund applications had to be  decided\tby  the\t authorities
\nafter hearing  the  appellants.\t The entire question whether
\nthe claim for refund was justified in law  or  not  and\t the
\nfurther\t connected  question  whether  the amounts deposited
\nwere towards  “basic  wages”  or  otherwise  were  open\t for
\nconsideration of  the  authorities.   It cannot be said that
\nsuch an inquiry was not open  to  the  authorities  and\t was
\nclearly\t shut  out by the order of the High Court dated 19th
\nJuly, 1976 recording the concession of the learned  Advocate
\nGeneral.   The\tfirst  point, therefore, is answered against
\nthe appellants and in favour of the respondent authorities.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 2:\n<\/p>\n
\tThis takes us to the consideration of the merits  of
\nthe controversy.    In order to resolve this controversy, it
\nis necessary to\t have  a  look\tat  the\t relevant  statutory
\nscheme.\t  It has to be kept in view that the Act in question
\nis a beneficial social welfare\tlegislation  meant  for\t the
\nprotection of weaker sections of society namely, workmen who
\nhad  to\t eke out their livelihood from the meagre wages they
\nreceive after toiling hard for the same.   We  may  usefully
\nrefer  to  the observations of a two Judge Bench decision of
\nthis court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs.\tS.D.
\nCollege, Hoshiarpur & Ors.<\/a>  (supra),  wherein  it  has\tbeen
\nobserved in para 10 of the Report that:\n<\/p>\n
\t    “….The Act is a beneficial welfare legislation
\n\t    to ensure  health  and  other  benefits  to\t the
\n\t    employees.\t The employer under the Act is under
\n\t    a statutory obligation to deduct  the  specified
\n\t    percentage\t of   the   contribution   from\t the
\n\t    employee’s salary and matching contribution, the
\n\t    entire amount is required to be deposited in the
\n\t    fund within\t 15  days  after  the  date  of\t the
\n\t    collection, even month.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 6 of the Act which imposes this statutory obligation
\non  the\t employers for remitting the requisite contributions
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t    “6.\t  Contributions\t and  matters  which  may be
\n\t    provided for in Schemes The\t contribution  which
\n\t    shall  be paid by the employer to the Fund shall
\n\t    be [ten per cent] of the basic wages,  [dearness
\n\t    allowance  and  retaining  allowances (if any)],
\n\t    for the  time  being  payable  to  each  of\t the
\n\t    employees  [(whether employed by him directly or
\n\t    by or through a contractor)] and the  employee’s
\n\t    contributions shall be equal to the contribution
\n\t    payable  by\t the  employer in respect of him and
\n\t    may, [if any employee so desires, be  an  amount
\n\t    exceeding  ten  per\t cent  of  his\tbasic wages,
\n\t    dearness allowance and retaining  allowance\t (if
\n\t    any), subject to the condition that the employer
\n\t    shall  not\tbe  under  an  obligation to pay any
\n\t    contribution over  and  above  his\tcontribution
\n\t    payable under this section]:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    [Provided\tthat   in  its\tapplication  to\t may
\n\t    establishment or class of  establishments  which
\n\t    the\t Central  Govt. after making such inquiry as
\n\t    it\tdeems  fit,  may,  by  notification  in\t the
\n\t    Official  Gazette specify, this section shall be
\n\t    subject to the modification that for  the  words
\n\t    ten\t percent”,  at\tboth  the  places where they
\n\t    occurr,  the  words\t twelve\t percent”  hall\t  be
\n\t    substituted]:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tnot  in\t dispute  between  the\tparties\t  that\t the
\nappellants’ establishments are governed by the Act.  In fact
\nlearned\t counsel  for  the  appellants\tstated that they are
\nremitting requisite contributions under Section 6 so far  as
\nthe amounts of “basic wages” paid by them to their employees
\nare  concerned\tand  equally matching contributions from the
\nemployees are also deducted from their wages and remitted to
\nthe authorities under the Act.\tIt  is\tobvious\t that  these
\ncontributions  from  part of the fund and the provident fund
\naccounts of the workmen maintained by the authorities  under
\nthe  scheme  are  credited  with  these amounts from time to
\ntime.  These  funded  amounts  would  be  available  to\t the
\nworkmen for the requirements as withdrawals can be made from
\nthe workers’ credit balances in the fund as envisaged by the
\nAct.   However,\t Shri  Ranjit Kumar’s grievance is a limited
\none,  namely,  that  the  appellants  are  not\t liable\t  to
\ncontribute  with  reference to the amounts which are paid to
\nthe workmen which are not “basic wages”.  It  was  submitted
\nthat  under  Section  6\t of  the  Act,\tonly  three types of
\ncontributions are required to be effected  by  the  employer
\nalong  with  the corresponding matching contributions by the
\nemployees as requisite percentage of the amounts;  i)  basic
\nwage,  ii)  dearness allowance and iii) retaining allowance,
\nif any, paid to the  workmen  by  the  employers.    It\t was
\ncontended that undisputably the amounts in question were not
\npaid  to  the  workmen\tby  way\t of  dearness  allowance and
\n“retaining allowance” as  laid\tdown  by  Explanation  2  to
\nSection 6  of  the  Act.  It means “an allowance payable for
\nthe time being to  an  employee\t of  any  factory  or  other
\nestablishment  during  any period in which the establishment
\nis not working, for retaining  his  services”.\t  Therefore,
\naccording  to him unless disputed amounts are part of “basic
\nwages” they cannot be made subject matter of  contributions.
\nIn  order  to  support\this  aforesaid\tcontention,  learned
\ncounsel for the appellants  invited  our  attention  to\t the
\ndefinition  of “basic wages” as found in Section 2(b) of the
\nAct.  It will be necessary therefore, to have a look at\t the
\nsaid definition.  It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t    “2 Definitions –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (b) “basic wages”means all emoluments which\t are
\n\t    earned by an employee while on duty or [on leave
\n\t    or\ton  holidays  with  Wages in either case] in
\n\t    accordance with the terms  of  the\tcontract  of
\n\t    employment and which are paid or payable in cash
\n\t    to him, but does not include.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (i)\t  the cash value of any food concession:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (ii)  any dearness allowance (that\tis  to\tsay,
\n\t    all\t cash  payments by whatever name called paid
\n\t    to an employee on account of a rise in the\tcost
\n\t    of\t living),   house-rent\tallowance,  overtime
\n\t    allowance,\tbonus,\tcommission  or\t any   other
\n\t    similar  allowance\tpayable\t to  the employee in
\n\t    respect of his employment or  of  work  done  in
\n\t    such employment;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (iii) any present made by the employer<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The  first  part of the definition clearly indicates that all
\nemoluments which are earned by an employee while on  duty  in
\naccordance  with  the terms of the contract of employment and
\nwhich are paid or payable in cash to him would get covered by
\nthe main part of the  definition.    It\t is  not  in  dispute
\nbetween the parties that the concerned employees were paid at
\nthe relevant time additional emoluments which they had earned
\nby  their  extra efforts and labor and they did so while they
\nwere on duty and such extra work which they had done was  not
\ndehors the  therms  of\tthe contract of employment.  The said
\namounts were payable in cash to the concerned employees.  But
\nthe general sweep of the aforesaid definition gets  curtailed
\nin  the present case according to the learned counsel for the
\nappellants.  He placed reliance\t on  the  exception  category\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  of  the said definition, namely, that it was the amount
\npaid by way of Production  Bonus  and,\ttherefore,  the\t said
\namount gets excluded from the general sweep of the definition
\n“basic wages” as found in Section 2(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, the short question is whether the disputed
\namounts paid to the workmen employed by the appellants during
\nthe  relevant  time  were  paid by way of Production Bonus or
\nnot.  An incidental question will also arise namely,  whether
\nin  any case the said amount can be said to be covered by the
\nlatter part of the exception category (ii) of the  definition
\nSection\t 2(b) being similar allowance payable to the employee
\nin respect of  his  employment\tor  the\t work  done  in\t such
\nemployment.  It was submitted that in any case this allowance
\nwas paid  for  the  extra  work\t by  way  of  incentive.  The
\naforesaid contention of learned counsel\t for  the  appellants
\nwill have to be examined in the light of the Production Bonus
\nScheme\tin  question which has been the sheet – anchor of the
\nappellants’ case for getting out of the sweep  of  Section  6
\nread with  Section 2(b) of the Act.  The said scheme which is
\nidentical in nature for both the appellants reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “Production\tBonus  is  paid\t for  the   following
\n\t   reasons:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   1.\t Less  than the normal number of people doing
\n\t   the normal work of a working shift, in which\t case
\n\t   the\tProduction  Bonus  is  paid  according to the
\n\t   deficiency in the numerical strength of the staff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   2.  Extra output  given  by\tany  workmen  in  any
\n\t   shift.   Output of compositors and distributors is
\n\t   measured in terms of column inches of  type,\t that
\n\t   of  machine\tmen  in\t terms\tof  the\t speed of the
\n\t   machines and of the process section\tin  terms  of
\n\t   plates and  negatives.    Allowance\tis  made  for
\n\t   delays caused by factors beyond the control of the
\n\t   workmen.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   Production Bonus in 1.5  times  the\tnormal\tdaily
\n\t   wage.   It  may be reduced or increased on account
\n\t   of  special\treasons\t at  the  discretion  of  the
\n\t   management.\t It  is\t variable from month to month
\n\t   and is apart from the basic wage of the workmen”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now,  a mere look at the aforesaid scheme, which is styled as
\nProduction Bonus Scheme, shows\tthat  so  far  as  the\tfirst
\ncategory  of  cases  envisaged by the Scheme is concerned, it
\ncontemplates a situation where at a given point of  time  the
\nrequired  number  of  staff  may  not  be  available with the
\nlikelihood that the production for the day might fall and  in
\norder  to  ensure maintenance of the same level of production
\nother workmen available in the given shift may by required to
\ncarry on the extra work than what is normally required to  be
\ndone by them.  In such cases, an extra amount is contemplated
\nto  be offered to the remaining employees who are present and
\nwho take extra load of work which otherwise would  have\t been
\ndischarged by  their  absentee\tcolleagues.   The category of
\ncases  contemplated  by\t the  first  part   of\t the   Scheme
\nnecessarily indicates that any extra effort undertaken by the
\nworkmen\t discharging  extra  load  of work over and above the
\nusual work expected of them normally is to ensure maintenance
\nof the requisite normal level of production.  This  situation
\nis entirely different from the one wherein more than normally
\nexpected  out-turn  of\twork  is  being made available by the
\nworkmen who would get Production Bonus by way of incentive to
\nvalid\ttotal\tproduction   beyond   its    normal    level.
\nConsequently, the first category of cases contemplated by the
\nScheme cannot be said to be introduction any Production Bonus
\nscheme in  the\treal sense of the term.\t It in substance is a
\nscheme of insurance against shortfall  in  normal  production
\nper shift due to shortage of available staff at a given point
\nof time.    While we turn to the second category of cases, it
\nis true that it envisages extra payment as  an\tincentive  to
\nany  workman in any shift who puts in extra output by his own
\neffects.  How the extra output for the concerned  workman  is
\nto be ascertained for being eligible for the extra payment by
\nway of\tan  incentive is laid down by this clause.  So far as
\ncompositors and distributors are concerned, their output will
\nbe measured in terms of column inches of type, and  if\ttheir
\noutput\tgoes  beyond the normal output expected of them under
\nthe contract of service, then  they  would  be\teligible  for
\ngetting\t the benefit of the Production Bonus Scheme envisaged
\nby category 2.\tSimilarly, for\tmachine\t men
\nto the extent speed of the machines handled by them per shift
\nis beyond the normally expected speed of machine  handled  by
\nmachine men would show the eligibility of the machine men for
\nsuch  extra  payment and so far as the workers working in the
\nprocessing  section  are  concerned  their  eligibility\t  for
\nearning\t extra\tpayment would depend upon the additional work
\nwhich they would be said to have put in per shift in items of
\nthe plates and negatives normally to be handled by them.   It
\nis,  therefore,\t obvious  that\tthe extra output given by the
\nconcerned workmen in any shift will  depend  upon  the\tbasic
\nnorm  fixed for the output which will have to be given by the
\nconcerned workmen during the shift and if it  is  found\t that
\nany extra output is put up by them beyond the requisite norms
\nof  work-load  then only the same would make them eligible to
\nget benefit of the Production Bonus as envisaged by  category\n<\/p>\n
2.   It\t becomes  at  once  clear  that\t before the situation
\nenvisaged by category 2 can be said to have got attracted  in
\na  given case it must be shown that the workmen concerned had
\nput in extra  work  in\ta  shift  beyond  what\twas  normally
\nrequired by  them.    Unless that basic data is available, it
\nwould be impossible to work out the extra output  put  up  by
\nhim in\ta  given  shift\t on  a particular day.\tIt is easy to
\nvisualise that if the workman was  paid\t an  amount  for  the
\noutput\tgiven  by  him\tin  a  shift which is up to the norms
\nprescribed for his output it would obviously  remain  in  the
\nrealm or “basic wages”.\t In order that the amount goes beyond
\nthe  “basic  wage”  it\thas  to\t be  shown  that  the workman
\nconcerned had become eligible to get this  extra  amount  for
\nthe  work  beyond  the\tnormal\twork  which  he was otherwise
\nrequired to put in.  There is no date available on record  to
\nshow what were the norms of work prescribed for these workmen
\nduring the  relevant  period.  It is, therefore, not possible
\nto ascertain whether extra amounts paid to these workmen were
\nin fact paid for the extra work which had exceeded the normal
\noutput prescribed for the workmen working in any given\tshift
\nat the relevant time.  As the appellants did not furnish such
\nrelevant data, the authorities were justified in holding that
\nthe  disputed  amounts cannot be said to be forming part of a
\ngenuine Production Bonus Scheme.  But, even apart from\tthat,
\nthe  last  part\t of  category  2  of  the Scheme makes a very
\ninteresting and curious reading.    Even  assuming  that  the
\nworkmen concerned had become eligible under the first part of
\ncategory  2  of the scheme to get bonus for the extra output,
\nthe amount of Production Bonus which was to be\tavailable  to
\nsuch  eligible workmen would be 1.5 times their normal “daily
\nwage”.\tIt is true that it may be  reduced  or\tincreased  on
\naccount\t of  special reasons but the increase or decrease for
\nspecial\t reasons  by  the  management  would  be  a   uniform
\ndeduction  or  increase\t in  the  amount  of Production Bonus
\navailable in the said category of cases.  It would not depend
\nupon individual cases of the workmen concerned to serve as  a
\nreal incentive\tbonus.\t  Thus the scheme of Production Bonus
\nenvisaged by category 2 of the scheme  in  substance  has  no
\nnexus  or  connection with the extra production effort by the
\nworkman.  In other words, by way of Production Bonus he\t will
\nnot  get  any  extra amount in proportion to the extra output
\nput up by him beyond the norms as  compared  to\t this  fellow
\nworkmen.   The\tworking\t of  category  2 of the scheme can be
\nappreciated by\ttaking\tan  example.\tIf  there  are\t five
\ncompositors  working in a shift in the appellant’s concern on
\na given day and if each of the compositors has to compose  20
\nsheets\tper  shift  being  the\tnormal\twork  expected\tof  a
\ncompositor, then if they compose only 20 sheets\t in  a\tshift
\nthey  cannot  be  said to have earned the eligibility for the
\nProduction Bonus as contemplated by category 2 of the scheme.
\nBut if out of those five compositors, two are more  energetic
\nand  in\t a  given  shift  on  a day they compose more than 20
\nsheets and if one of them composes 25 sheets and another  one
\ncomposes 28 sheets both of of them can be said to have put in
\nextra  output  beyond  the  normal  output  by\tfive or eight
\nsheets, as the case may be and still both of them who  become
\neligible  employees  for  earning  Production  Bonus  as  per
\ncategory 2 of the scheme will be paid  a  flat\trate  of  1.5
\ntimes their normal daily wage.\tIf the normal daily wage of a
\ncompositor is\tRs.\t 50\/-  then  both  of  the  aforesaid
\ncompositors will get extra amount of Rs.  75\/each even though
\nboth of them have  put\tin  different  extra  outputs.\t  The
\ncompositor who has composed five more sheets obviously cannot
\nbe  treated  on\t par for payment of Production Bonus with the
\nother compositor who has put in extra output of eight  sheets
\nand  still both of them will be treated equally for the grant
\nof Production Bonus and will get Rs.  75\/- each whatever  the
\nextra output  produced by each of them.\t Thus, the payment of
\nProduction Bonus as envisaged in category 2 cases  under  the
\nscheme is not directly linked up with the
\namount\tof   extra   output   furnished\t  by   the   workmen.
\nConsequently,  the  aforesaid  scheme  said  to\t be  granting
\nProduction Bonus to the\t employees  is\tin  substance  not  a
\nscheme\twhich is directly linked up with extra production nor
\nit is commensurate with the extra production workman-wise  or
\neven establishment-wise.    It\tonly carves out a category of
\nmore efficient workmen or more enthusiastic workmen for being
\ngiven a flat rate of extra remuneration for discharging their
\nduties more efficiently under the contract of employment.  It
\noffers in substance  an\t instantaneous\tsuperior  daily\t wage
\nscheme for   more   efficient\tworkmen.    Consequently  the
\ndefinition of the term “basic wages” as found in  first\t part
\nof  Section  2(b) will squarely get attracted as 1.5 times of
\nnormal wages which will be given to workmen under category  2
\nof  the scheme will be excess emoluments earned by them while
\non duty in accordance with  the\t terms\tof  the\t contract  of
\nemployment.   This  amount  uniformly  paid to them having on
\ndirect nexus with the amount of the extra output  put  up  by
\nthem, strictly\tspeaking  is  not  a  Production Bonus.\t Thus
\nexcepted category (ii) as  envisaged  by  definition  Section
\n2(b)  would  not  be  available\t for  being  invoked  by  the
\nappellants.  We repeatedly  asked  learned  counsel  for  the
\nappellants   to\t enlighten  us\tas  to\twhat  are  the\tnorms
\nprescribed by  the  appellants\tfor  output  of\t compositors,
\ndistributors,  machine\tmen  and  those\t working  in  process
\nsections with a view to finding out  as\t to  how  during  the
\nrelevant  period  when the disputed amounts were paid to them
\nthey had over shot the\tnorms  prescribed  over\t their\tdaily
\ndues.\tWe  also wanted to know whether all such workmen were
\nto be paid proportionately for the extra  output  has  to  be
\nworked\tout in terms of the column inches of types, the speed
\nof the machine and the plates and negatives  manufactured  by
\nthem as\t laid  down  by category 2 of the said scheme.\tIt is
\ndifficult to appreciate how this measure for finding out  the
\nextra  output  can show that the permissible & fixed norms of
\noutput for workmen were exceeded the workmen at the  relevant
\ntime in\t a  given shift on the days concerned.\tHe also could
\nnot effectively indicate as to how the\tProduction  Bonus  at
\n1.5  times  the\t normal\t daily\twage to be given to concerned
\neligible workmen was directly linked up with  the  extent  of
\nthe  extra  output  put\t up by each of them individually when
\nthere is only a flat rate of 1.5 times of  the\tnormal\tdaily
\nwage prescribed\t for  all of such workmen.  Shri Ranjit Kumar
\ntried to show that Production Bonus of 1.5  times  of  normal
\ndaily  wage  was  only\ta  measure  or mode of calculation of
\npermissible Production Bonus.  It is difficult to  appreciate
\nthis contention.  On the contrary, a mere look at second part
\nof para 2 of the scheme clearly indicates that a flat rate of
\nProduction  Bonus  at  1.5 times of normal daily wage will be
\navailable to all the workmen concerned if they are  found  to
\nhave given extra output beyond the minimum output expected of
\nthem per shift on a given day.\tConsequently, on the wordings
\nof  the scheme on which strong reliance was placed by learned
\ncounsel for the appellants it is impossible to hold  that  it
\nwas  a\tgenuine\t Production  Bonus  scheme  linked with extra
\nproduction given by the workmen concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the aforesaid conclusion of ours, the  alternative
\ncontention  of\tthe learned counsel for the appellants to the
\neffect that it is an incentive bonus scheme and can at\tleast
\nbe covered by the phrase “any other similar allowance payable
\nto  the employee in respect of his employment or work” as per
\nlast part of excepted category (ii) of the definition  clause
\n2(b) also cannot  be  of  any  avail.  Reason is obvious.  In
\norder to become an incentive allowance, it has\tto  be\tshown
\nthat  those  eligible  workmen who had put in extra output as
\nper para 2 of the scheme would\tbe  entitled  by  way  of  an
\nincentive  to  do more work to get additional amount directly
\nlinked up with extra output given by them.  No\tsuch  linkage
\nis found  from\tclause 2 of the scheme as noted earlier.  All
\nthose workmen who have put in extra  output  and  who  become
\neligible to get the benefit of clause 2 of the scheme are not
\nto  be\tpaid Production Bonus commensurate with the extent of
\nthe output put up by them.  They will all be paid equally  at
\n1.5 times  the normal daily wage.  If that happens the person
\nwho puts in lesser percentage of extra output by 5% will  get
\nthe same amount as his colleague who puts on 20% of the extra
\noutput.\t  Thus,\t there\twill  be no incentive for him to give
\nsuch an amount of extra output above normal output so  as  to
\nreach  any  further  extra  output  limit  as compared to his
\ncolleague  who\twas  also  given  extra\t output\t beyond\t  the
\nprescribed norms.     Consequently  there  will\t be  no\t real
\nincentive available to the concerned eligible workman who has
\nput in required percentage of extra output, to\tstrive\tstill
\nmore for  reaching  higher amount of extra output.  He would,
\non the\tcontrary,  rest\t on  his  own  at  the\tstage  having
\nconsidered the\tnorms  even  to the slightest extent.  It is,
\ntherefore, not possible to agree with learned counsel for the
\nappellants that the scheme  concerned,\tapart  from  being  a
\nProduction  Bonus  scheme,  is\tat  least  an incentive bonus
\nscheme for the concerned employees.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe nature of the bonus scheme envisaged by exception\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  to Section 2(b) of the Act came up for consideration of
\nthis Court in two judgments.  We may usefully refer  to\t them
\nat this stage.\tA six member Constitution Bench of this Court
\nin Bridge & Roof Co.  (India)Ltd.  Vs.\tUnion of India & Ors.
\ncase  (supra)  had  to\tconsider  as  to  when\ta  scheme  of
\nProduction Bonus can be\t said  to  be  covered\tby  the\t term
\n“bonus” as found in the exception (ii) to Section 2(b) of the
\nAct.   Wanchoo,\t j.,  (as  he then was), speaking for the six
\nmember Bench observed  in  this\t connection  that  “the\t word
\n“bonus” was used in the definition section of the Act without
\nany  qualification and that the legislature had in mind every
\nkind of bonus that may be payable to an\t employee  which  was
\nprevalent in  the  industrial  field  before 1952.  It is not
\npossible to accept the\tcontention  of\tthe  respondent\t that
\nwhatever is the price of labour and arises out of contract is
\nnecessarily  included  in the definition of “basic wages” and
\ntherefore Production Bonus which is a kind of incentive\t wage
\nwould also be included, in view of the exception of all kinds
\nof bonus form the definition…..” .\n<\/p>\n
\tIt  may\t be  noted  that  incentive  Production Bonus
\nscheme which was on the anvil of scrutiny of  this  court  in
\nthe  aforesaid\tdecision  and  which was held to get excluded
\nform the sweep of the main definition part of Section 2(b) of
\nthe Act was directly linked up with production. In  fact  the
\nsaid  scheme was linked up with the total output given by the
\nentire body of\tworkmen\t in  the  concerned  employment.  The
\nscheme\twith  which  the  court\t was  concerned\t in that case
\nenvisaged Production Bonus to be given to the entire body  of
\nworkmen after their total output reached 5,000 tons per year.
\nIt  was a comprehensive scheme enacted for the benefit of the
\nentire class of workmen to offer them incentive to work\t more
\nand  to\t get  more.  It\t was, therefore, held to be a genuine
\nProduction Bonus  Scheme.  Placing  reliance  on  an  earlier
\nConstitution  Bench  decision  of this court in M\/s. Titaghur
\nPaper Mills Co. Ltd.  Vs.  Its\tWorkmen\t (1959\tSupp.(2)  SCR
\n1012), it was observed that :\n<\/p>\n
\t   “….the  payment of Production Bonus depends upon
\n\t   production and  is  in  addition  to\t wages.\t   In
\n\t   effect,  it\tis  an incentive to higher production
\n\t   and is in the nature of an incentive wage”.\t  The
\n\t   straight   piece   produced\tis  the\t simplest  of
\n\t   incentive wage plans…..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the light of the aforesaid observations, it was held that
\nthe scheme which fell for consideration of the\tCourt  was  a
\nscheme\tof Production Bonus wherein beyond a base or standard
\nup to which basic wages\t or  time  wages  have\tto  be\tpaid,
\npayment were  made  for\t superior  performance.\t   This extra
\npayment could be called an incentive wage and also Production
\nBonus.\tThe aforesaid observations of the  six\tmember\tBench
\nclearly clinch the issue against the appellants.  In order to
\nbecome\ta  genuine Production Bonus scheme payment to be made
\nto meritorious workmen who put in extra output, has to have a
\ndirect nexus and linkage with  the  amount  of\textra  output
\nproduced  by the eligible workmen so that the scheme can work
\nas a real incentive scheme equally  to\tthem  to  make\textra
\nefforts.   Such\t a  scheme  may\t have sliding scales of bonus
\namount based to total extra quantity of production for\twhich
\nall workmen can uniformly be paid bonus on the basis of their
\nco-operative efforts.\t More  the  extra production more the
\navailable surplus of bonus to be divided amongst all eligible
\nworkmen uniformly.  Other type of incentive bonus scheme  may
\nbe  made available to an individual meritorious workman extra
\npayment for extra work having direct linkage with  the\textra
\nproduction out-turned\tby   him.     In  neither  case\t such
\ndistributable bonus can be a static figure as in the  present
\ncase.\tOn  the\t facts\tof the present case, as seen earlier,
\nunfortunately for the appellants the  scheme  on  which\t they
\nrelied\tdoes  not  fulfil  the\taforesaid  legal logistic for
\nbecoming a genuine Production Bonus scheme.    It  is  not  a
\nscheme\tof  sliding  scale  bonus  having real nexus with the
\namount of extra output furnished  by  the  concerned  workmen
\neither individually  or\t collectively.\tAs seen earlier, once
\nthey crossed even slightly the norm of work expected of\t them
\nin  a  given  shift,  they  all\t fall in the same category of
\neligible workmen entitled  to  get  on\tuniform\t basis\textra
\namount of  1.5 times the basic daily wage.  Thus, this scheme
\nof paying extra remuneration to more eligible  and  efficient
\nworkmen\t is  a\tscheme\tof  super  wage fixation and is not a
\ngenuine scheme of incentive bonus which has to be  earned  by
\nthe  workmen  by  showing their capabilities for earning such
\nextra bonus linked up with the quantity of extra  production.
\nIn  the\t same  volume at page 995 it reported the case of Jay
\nEngineering Works Ltd.\t& Ors.\tvs.  Union of  India  &\t Ors.<\/a>
\n(supra),  wherein  also\t Wanchoo,J.,  spoke for a four member
\nBench.\tThe  scheme  under  this  very\tAct  which  came  for
\nconsideration  in  that case was a composite Production Bonus
\nscheme.\t It laid down that if a workman gave  outturn  beyond
\nthe  minimum quantity fixed for him by waly of floor quota he
\nbecame entitled to additional remuneration even\t though\t that
\nadditional  remuneration  was for that extra out-turn of work
\nwhich was below the norm of out-turn which  he\twas  enjoined
\nunder the  contract  of\t service  to fulfil.  The very scheme
\nalso contemplated extra amount to be paid to the workmen  who
\nexceeded  the  norms  of  output and gave extra output beyond
\nsuch norms.  Analysing the said scheme Wanchool j., for\t this
\ncourt  held that to the extent to which any more remuneration
\nwas paid to the workman who had given outturn more  than  the
\nquantity  of quota output fixed but up to limit of the normal
\noutput required of him, the extra remuneration part-took  the
\ncharacter  of extra wage and was covered by the definition of
\n“basic wages” but to the extent to which such  out-turn\t went
\nbeyond\tnormal\trequirement  of\t amount\t fixed,\t then to that
\nextent extra payment for such extra output beyond  the\tnorms
\nfixed became  a\t Production Bonus scheme.  In the case before
\nthis Court, such extra payment was on  a  piece\t rate  basis.
\nThe  workman  concerned become entitled to be paid additional
\nremuneration to the extent to which he produced goods  beyond
\nthe norms  prescribed for such work.  It is easy to visualise
\nthat once a workman under any scheme of bonus is to  be\t paid
\non  piece rate basis for the extra output given by him beyond
\nthe norms prescribed for such work, the extra amount  payable
\nto  him\t will  have  a\tdirect\tlinkage with the extra output
\nfurnished by him.  More extra output more payment; less extra
\noutput less payment.   Such  a\tscheme\twould  be  a  genuine
\nProduction Bonus  scheme.    The  scheme in question does not
\nfulfil the criteria laid down for a genuine production\tbonus
\nscheme\tby  either of the judgments of this Court in Bridge &
\nRoof Co.  (India) Ltd.\tvs.  Union of India<\/a> case  (supra)  or
\nin Jay Engineering  Works Ltd.\tY Ors.\tvs The Union of India
\n& Ors.<\/a>\tcase (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this connection, we may now usefully refer to  the
\nConstitution Bench judgment in M\/s.  Titaghur Paper Mills Co.
\nLtd.  vs.    Its  Workmen<\/a>  case\t (supra),  wherein an earlier
\nConstitution Bench speaking through Wanchoo,j., had  occasion
\nto  consider  the  legal  connotation  of  a Production Bonus
\nscheme as distinct from profit\tbonus  scheme.\t  The  scheme
\nwhich fell for consideration of the Constitution Bench in the
\nsaid  case  was\t one floated by the company wherein up to the
\nproduction 36,000 tons, there was a  uniform  rate  of\tbonus
\npayable by the company for giving appropriate remuneration to
\nthe workmen for producing that much quantity of goods but the
\nscheme\tdid  not  provide for production bonus for production
\nabove 36,000 tons, as there  was  on  agreement\t between  the
\nManagement and\tthe  Union  in\tthis  respect.\t The question
\nbefore the Industrial tribunal\tfrom  whose  decision  appeal
\ncame  to  this court was whether the workmen were entitled to
\nbe given further benefit of production incentive scheme if by
\ntheir joint efforts production of  the\tcompany\t went  beyond
\n36,000\ttons  and  whether  it\twas  necessary to provide for
\nProduction Bonus beyond this limit.  The  tribunal,  in\t that
\ncase  while  giving  clearance\tto  such  a  scheme, gave two
\nreasons for increase in the rates of  payment  of  Production
\nBonus  (i)  the intensification of the efforts of the workmen
\nin increasing production, and (ii) the progressive going down
\nof the labour  cost  of\t production  per  ton  as  production
\nincreased.   The rates had to be increased progressively with
\nproduction.  Consequently, for\teach  460  tons\t increase  in
\nproduction  the\t proper rates for payment of Priduction Bonus
\nwould be 1.5, 1.5, 1.75 and 2 days basic  wages\t respectively
\nfor  production\t between  36,000  and 42,000 tons, 42,000 and
\n48,000 tons, 48,000 and 54,000tons and 54,000 and 60,000tons.
\nIt is this additional Production Bonus scheme ordered by  the
\nTribunal  which\t was  examined\tby  this  Court\t in  the said
\ndecision.  While upholding the said modification in the bonus
\nscheme of the company, this court held that this  was  not  a
\nprofit\tbonus  scheme  but was a genuine production incentive
\nbonus scheme as the  Production\t Bonus\tto  be\tpaid  to  the
\nworkmen\t was  directly linked with the extra output furnished
\nby them by their own efforts earn such nouns.  Thus  in\t each
\ncase  payment  of bonus cannot be of a fixed or proven nature
\nhaving on nexus with the quantity of extra output produced by
\nthem.  As in the present case the scheme  relied  on  by  the
\nappellants  does  not  fulfil  this  legal  test  it does not
\nattract the exception (ii) to Section 2(b).   It  remains  in
\nthe realm  of  basic  extra  wage.   The decision rendered by
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court as  confirmed  by  the
\nDivision  Bench\t decision,  cannot,  therefore be found fault
\nwith.  The submission of learned counsel for  the  appellants
\nthat  in  the  scheme in question there was no compulsion for
\nthe workman to put in extra work and the management could not
\ncompel him to do extra work not can it allege any  misconduct
\non  the\t part  of such workman who does not want to do excess
\nwork cannot be of any avail to the learned  counsel  for  the
\nappellants  as\teven  if  this\tcriteria may be common to the
\npresent scheme\tas  well  as  the  genuine  Production\tBonus
\nscheme,\t the  further  requirement  of the scheme to become a
\ngenuine Production Bonus scheme, namely, that the payment  by
\nway of bonus to the concerned eligible workman should very in
\nproportion  to the extra output put up by him beyond the norm
\nof output prescribed for him, is conspicuously absent in  the
\npresent\t scheme, as seen earlier, and on the other hand, this
\nrequirement which is the very heart of a  genuine  Production
\nBonus  scheme is missing in the present scheme and therefore,
\nsimilarity on only one aspect between the genuine  production
\nincentive  scheme  and\tthe  present scheme, namely, that the
\nworkman could not have been compelled to carry out extra work
\npales into insignificance on the facts of the  present\tcase.
\nTherefore, the second question has to be answered against the
\nappellants and in favour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Point No.3 :\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile granting special leave to appeal in this\tcase,
\nby  an\torder  dated  9th May, 1958 this court had stayed the
\nrecovery of the\t amounts  of  the  Employees  Provident\t Fund
\ncontribution  for  the\tpast  period, subject to furnishing a
\nbank guarantee for payment of that  sum.    But\t no  stay  of
\nrecovery of  future contribution was granted.  As the appeals
\nfail, the bank guarantee if furnished by the appellants, will
\nbe available for being encashed by  the\t respondents  towards
\nthe liability of the appellants for the contributions for the
\npast period which had remained stayed by order of this court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  the\t result,  the appeals fail and are dismissed.
\nInterim relief vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, there will be on order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998 Author: S.B.Majmudar Bench: S.B.Majmudar, M.Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: THE DAILY PARTAP Vs. RESPONDENT: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, HARYANA, Himachal Pradesh and Union Tereitory, Chandigarh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/1998 BENCH: S.B.Majmudar, M.Jagannadha Rao JUDGMENT: S.B.Majmudar, J. Both these […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-13T12:13:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-13T12:13:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\"},\"wordCount\":7827,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\",\"name\":\"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-13T12:13:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-13T12:13:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998","datePublished":"1998-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-13T12:13:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998"},"wordCount":7827,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998","name":"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-13T12:13:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-daily-partap-vs-the-regional-provident-fund-on-29-october-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Daily Partap vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 29 October, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}