1978 JTR(SC) 359
1979 AIR(SC) 233 ; 1979 38 FLR 58 ; 1978 LIC 1772 ; 1979 1 LLJ 162 ; 1979 3 SCC 220 ; 1979 SCC(L&S) 270 ; 1979 1 SCJ 298 ; 1979 KHC 749
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.S. Kailasam, A.D. Koshal, JJ.
Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. and others – Appellant
Versus
D.M. Aney and another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 594 of 1971
Decided On : 16-11-1978
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.39, Art.43, Art.19(1)(g), Art.301
PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT : S.10
PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT (21 OF 1965) - BONUS—PAYMENT IRRESPECTIVE OF PROFIT AND LOSS NOT UNREASONABLE - COMPULSORY PAYMENT OF BONUS BY EMPLOYER EVEN IN YEAR OF LOSS
-held, that condition compelling employer to pay statutory minimum bonus even in years where there has been loss, is reasonable or in public interest within meaning of Art. 19 (6) and Article 302.
-held it is an implementation of directive principles under Articles 39 and 43.
-held, restriction imposed by Section 10 of Payment of Bonus Act is reasonable and in public interest. The provision is not violative of Articles 301 and 302.
-held, that condition compelling employer to pay statutory minimum bonus even in years where there has been loss, is reasonable or in public interest within meaning of Art. 19 (6) and Article 302.
-held it is an implementation of directive principles under Articles 39 and 43.
-held, restriction imposed by Section 10 of Payment of Bonus Act is reasonable and in public interest. The provision is not violative of Articles 301 and 302.
Judgment
JUDGMENT :- The short and only point, draped as a constitutional issue, urged before us, after having been repelled by the Bombay High Court against whose judgment this appeal is filed by certificate, is as to whether Section 10 of the Bonus Act is ultra vires of Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 301 of the Constitution.
2. We are satisfied that the restriction imposed by the Bonus Act in compelling the employer to pay the statutory minimum bonus even in years where there has been a loss sustained by the management is reasonable or in public interest within the meaning of Articles 19 (6) and 302. What is reasonable depends on a variety of circumstances, but what is important is that the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution are fundamental to the governance of the country. Therefore, what is directed as State Policy by the founding fathers of the Constitution cannot be regarded as unreasonable or contrary to public interest even in the context of Art.19 or 302. It follows that payment of bonus, being in implementation of Articles 39 and 43 of the Constitution, is reasonable. We agree with the High Court and dismiss the appeal with costs quantified at Rs.2,000/-. The costs be paid to respondent No.2.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1979 SC 233=(1979) I SCJ 293=(1979) 3 SCC 220.