Employers in Relation to the Bhowra Colliery vs Their Workmen

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1961

Decision Date: 30/01/1962

Coram: SARKAR, J.

In the matter titled Employers in Relation to the Bhowra Colliery versus Their Workmen, a judgment was delivered on the thirtieth day of January, 1962 by a bench of the Supreme Court of India. The petitioners were identified as the employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery and the respondents were their workmen. The cause of action concerned an industrial dispute relating to the entitlement of bonus under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act of 1948, specifically section five of that Act. The central issue was whether the malis who performed gardening and maintenance duties in the residential bungalows occupied by the officers of the colliery were eligible for bonus payments under the scheme. The Government, exercising the power granted by section five of the Act, had framed a Bonus Scheme that, in paragraph three, extended the eligibility for bonus to every employee of a coal mine except, by necessary implication, a mali engaged in domestic and personal work. The Court examined whether the malis employed in the officers’ bungalows fell within the exclusionary category of “domestic and personal work.” It was held that these malis were not entitled to any bonus under the Scheme because paragraph three was intended to exclude those who, although employed by the colliery owners, performed work of a domestic character. The term “domestic” was interpreted as work performed within a home setting, and the officers’ bungalows, being the homes of the officers, qualified as such. Moreover, the work performed did not cease to be domestic merely because the bungalows were owned by the appellant or because the malis acted under the appellant’s control. In addition, the malis were engaged in “personal” work, a phrase intended to describe labour performed for an individual rather than for the institution of the coal mine. Thus, the malis were working for the officers as private individuals and were consequently excluded from the bonus entitlement.

The appeal before the Court was Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1961, filed by special leave against an award dated the seventh of December, 1959, rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad in reference No. 42 of 1959. The appellants, identified as the Bhowra Kankanee Coal Company Limited, owned the Bhowra Colliery and several other collieries. Within the Bhowra Colliery, the company maintained a number of residential bungalows that were occupied by its officers. The company employed fourteen malis whose responsibilities consisted of looking after and maintaining the gardens of these bungalows. A dispute arose between the company and the malis concerning their right to receive a bonus under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act. Pursuant to an order dated the twenty‑third of June, 1959, issued under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, the Government of India referred this dispute, together with another matter not relevant to the present case, to the Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad for adjudication. The specific points referred to the Tribunal were framed as follows: (1) whether the withdrawal of the bonus benefit under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme from the garden mazdoors or malis was justified, and if not, the nature of the relief to which they were entitled and the date from which it should be applied; and (2) whether the garden mazdoors or malis were employed on domestic and personal work within the meaning of paragraph three (b) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, 1948, and if they were not, the appropriate relief and the applicable dates. The Tribunal decided against the appellants, and the present appeal challenges that award.

The Tribunal was asked to consider two specific questions. First, it had to determine whether the management of the Bhowra Colliery was justified in withdrawing the bonus benefit that was provided under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme to the garden mazdoor‑malis employed at the bungalow gardens. If the withdrawal was not justified, the Tribunal needed to decide what relief the mazdoor‑malis were entitled to and from which date such relief should be granted. The second question was whether those garden mazdoor‑malis fell within the meaning of “domestic and personal work” as defined in paragraph 3(b) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme of 1948. If they were not so classified, the Tribunal again had to determine the appropriate relief and its commencement date. The Tribunal decided these points against the appellants and issued an award on 7 December 1959; the present appeal challenges that award. Until 1 January 1955, the Bhowra Colliery and several other collieries were owned and operated as a group by the Eastern Coal Company Ltd. On that date the ownership was transferred to the present appellants. During the negotiation of this sale the workmen raised a dispute, arguing that their employment should be treated as continuous despite the change of ownership and that the conditions of service and the facilities they enjoyed under the former owners should be guaranteed and continued by the new owners. The dispute was referred to a conciliation officer appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, and it was settled by an agreement dated 14 January 1955, to which the conciliation officer, the workmen, the former owners and the appellants were parties. Paragraph 3 of that agreement stated: “Agreed that the existing service conditions and the facilities will be continued, excepting pension.”

In 1948 Parliament enacted the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, which, under section 5, empowered the Central Government to formulate a bonus scheme for employees of coal mines. Accordingly, the Central Government framed a Bonus Scheme in 1948. From that time the former owners of the Bhowra Colliery paid the garden mazdoor‑malis employed to maintain the bungalow gardens a bonus according to the Scheme. In 1951 the former owners briefly discontinued the bonus, which provoked an industrial dispute; they subsequently reinstated the bonus. Consequently, up to the date of the acquisition by the present appellants, the mazdoor‑malis had received the bonus continuously from 1948, apart from the short interruption in 1951. After the appellants assumed ownership, however, they stopped paying the bonus to these mazdoor‑malis, giving rise to the industrial dispute that forms the subject of this appeal. Paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme, as relevant to this case, reads: “Paragraph 3. Except as hereinafter provided, every employee in a coal mine to which this Scheme applies shall be eligible to qualify for a bonus. Exceptions – An employee …” The provision goes on to list categories of employees who are excluded from the benefit, which becomes a pivotal point in determining the entitlement of the garden mazdoor‑malis.

The Bonus Scheme provided that an employee working in a coal mine shall not be eligible for a bonus during any period when the employee is (a) … … …, (b) employed as a mali, sweeper or demestic servant on demestic and personal work, or (c) … … …. The first issue presented to the Court was whether the bungalow malis fell within the exclusion set out in clause (b) of that provision. The appellants argued before the Tribunal that the class of malis was expressly excluded from the Scheme by virtue of the language of exception (b). As an alternative ground, the appellants further maintained that the malis were nonetheless excluded because their duties constituted demestic and personal work as defined by the exception. The Tribunal rejected both of those submissions. It held firstly that the bungalow malis were entitled to receive a bonus under paragraph three of the agreement dated 14 January 1955, and secondly that the malis were not performing demestic or personal work and therefore did not fall within the exclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had no justification for withdrawing the bonus. The judgment of the Tribunal did not explain the basis on which it decided that the malis were covered by paragraph three of the 1955 agreement. One possible inference is that the Tribunal regarded the Bonus Scheme issued by the Central Government as forming a condition of service for the malis, or as a benefit to which they were lawfully entitled, and that the appellants, by entering into the 1955 agreement, bound themselves to maintain that benefit. If that interpretation is correct, the remaining question is whether the malis were engaged in demestic and personal work, because if they were, the Scheme would preclude any bonus entitlement as a condition or facility of their service.

The respondents, representing the workmen, contended before this Court that the right to a bonus was a condition of the malis’ service and a separate facility to which they were entitled, independent of the Bonus Scheme, and that this was the position taken by the Tribunal. The record does not make this point entirely clear. The appellants disputed the workmen’s contention and further asserted that, irrespective of the substantive question, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide it because the matter referred to the Tribunal concerned only the right to a bonus under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme. The Court finds the appellants’ argument to be well founded. The reference order explicitly asked whether the withdrawal of the bonus benefit provided in the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was justified. The language of that order indicates that the dispute centred on the right conferred by the Scheme itself, not on any ancillary right. This focus mirrors the workmen’s case as shown in their written statement filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, if the Tribunal had held that the malis were entitled to a bonus under the 14 January 1955 agreement independently of the Scheme, it would have exceeded its jurisdiction, and such an award cannot be sustained. The unresolved issue remains whether, on a proper construction of paragraph three of the Bonus Scheme, the bungalow malis possessed any entitlement to a bonus at all, a question that hinges on the interpretation of the phrase “on demestic and personal work.” The Tribunal concluded that the malis working in the appellants’ bungalows were not engaged in work for the home or household of private individuals and therefore were not performing demestic work. It also held that, because the malis operated under the direction and control of the appellants and could be transferred from one bungalow to another, they were not performing personal work. The Court is unable to accept that construction of paragraph three.

In the appeal, the respondent maintained the same position as the appellants. The Court therefore held that if the Tribunal had concluded that the malis were entitled to a bonus under the agreement dated 14 January 1955 independently of the Bonus Scheme, the Tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction and its award could not be sustained. The remaining issue was whether, on a proper interpretation of paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme, the malis possessed any right to a bonus. This was undoubtedly the question that had been referred to the Tribunal. The words that required construction were “on domestic and personal work.” The Tribunal had ruled that malis employed in bungalows owned by the appellants were not working for the home or household of private persons or individuals and therefore were not performing domestic work. It had also held that because the malis worked under the direction and control of the appellants and could be transferred from one bungalow to another or to other duties, they were not engaged in personal work. The Court could not accept this construction of paragraph 3. “Domestic” meant “of the home,” and the Court was convinced that the malis who worked in the bungalows occupied by the officers were indeed working in the officers’ homes and thus were performing domestic work. The nature of the work did not change because the bungalows belonged to the appellants rather than to the officers. Whether an officer hired his own mali to work in the bungalow garden or the malik was employed by the appellants, the work remained domestic. The fact that the malis were employed by the appellants and not directly by the officers made no difference. Likewise, the possibility that a mali might be transferred to other duties or might cease to be a mali was irrelevant; on such a transfer the employee could still become eligible for a bonus. Paragraph 3 of the Bonus Scheme excluded the bonus only for the period during which a mali performed domestic and personal work. The clause contemplated malis who were employees of the colliery owners yet engaged in domestic work. The Tribunal had confined the provision to cases where malis were appointed by the officers and received an allowance from the colliery owners for keeping them in the gardens of the officers’ bungalows. Although the term “employee” was defined in the Act that created the Bonus Scheme, the Court saw no justification for limiting the reference in paragraph 3 solely to such employees. Consequently, the Court concluded that the malis in the present case fell within the exception of paragraph 3, were engaged in domestic and personal work, and therefore were not entitled to any bonus under the Bonus Scheme.

The Court reiterated that the question of whether a malis performed domestic work must be answered by examining the actual character of the duties performed. In the present case the Court observed that the duties carried out by the malis under consideration consisted entirely of domestic tasks, and therefore those malis fell squarely within the exemption described in paragraph three of the Bonus Scheme. The Court further explained that the fact that the malis were assigned to work in the bungalows owned by the appellants, or that they acted under the direction and orders of the appellants, did not alter their classification as domestic workers. In addition, the Court expressed no difficulty in concluding that the work performed by these malis was personal work. The term “personal” was interpreted by the Court to signify work performed for an individual, as opposed to work performed for the coal mine as an institution, and the evidence showed that the malis were undeniably engaged in service for the officers in their private capacity. Consequently, the Court held that the work was personal in nature. For these reasons, the Court determined that the malis in the present matter were not entitled to any bonus under the Bonus Scheme, because the scheme expressly excluded bonuses for malis engaged in domestic or personal work. The Court also noted that the order of reference did not raise any separate question regarding entitlement to a bonus outside the framework of the Bonus Scheme, and therefore the Court declined to give any opinion on that ancillary issue. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s award insofar as it concerned the two points of dispute that had been referred, and declined to make any order for costs. The appeal was permitted.