JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

In the scheme of the petitioner Company1 however the worker ca~not stop at the quota he must produce upto the nor1n on pain of being charged with misconduct. Therefore the real base or standard which is the core of a] typical pro duction bonus scheme i~, in the case of the petitioner company the norm. Any payment above the norm would be real production bonus under the present scheme and any pay- 1nent upto the nornf whether made in one firm or the.other, is basic wage for the purpose of the Act: Mr. Zia/ch v. Fire1Jtone Pyre and l/ub/Jer Co. ltd. (1954)1 L.L.J. 281, distinguished. The payment for production between the quota and the norm having nothing of the nature of ._an aJlowancc and it being a straight payment for the daily work must be included in the words defining basic wage. The portion of the pay ment which is'made by the petitioner for production above the 'norm' would be production bonus and would be COV'."red by the judgment of this Court in Bridge & Roof Company. ORIGINAL J.uRISDICTION : Petition No, 64 of

#1962. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights. G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. 0. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the petitioners. M. S. K. Sastri, R.H. Dhebar and P. D. Menon, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. j - 1962 Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India Wanohoa J. • 3 ~.C.R. SUPREME COIJRT REPORTS 997 r A. S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg, S. O. Agarwala, M. K. Ramamurthi and D.P. Singh, for respondent No. 3.

#1962. December 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · W ANCHOO, J.-This writ petition was heard along with writ petition No. 62 of 1902 (Bridge and Roof Company (India), Limited v. Union of India), as the short question in both of them was whether production bf'Jnus was excluded the term "basic wages" as defined in s.2 (b) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, No. 19 of 1952, (hereinafter referred to as thf.l Act). A further question also arose in this writ petition as to the nature of the production bonus scheme in force in the petitioner company, and the parties were given time to file additional affidavits in that connection. The. main point raised in the two writ petitions was decided in Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited v. Union ). The only question that now remains is of India( 1 whether tqe production bonus scheme in force in the petitioner-cD'npany is of the same type as in Bridge & Roof Oompany(l). If it is of the same nature the present petition would be governed by that decision and production bonus would be excluded from the term "basic wages" as defined in the Act. Thfl parties have filed additional affidavits and it now remains to determine the nature of production bonus in force in the petitioner-company and to decide whether the decision in the Bridge and Roof Oompany( 1 ) would apply in the present case, and if so, to what extent. It appears that some kind of production bonus scheme was started in the petitioner-company in 1947 and that scheme is sa.i4 to have been more or Jess co c196SJ s s.c.R. 978. 196! Jay Engintering Works Ltd. y Union of India CVanclaoo J. • 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ l9u3] on a straight piece-rate system. Then came the major engineering awards in the years 1948, 1950 and 1958 fixing basic minimum wages and dearness allowance. This was followed by an agreement between the petitioner-company and its workmen in August 1958, in which the present scheme in force was established even though some kind of production bonus on a more or less straight piece-rate system was in force from as far back as 1947. The scheme which was established by the agreement of 1958 was this. A certain proportion of the production was taken to correspond to the minimum basic wages and dearness allowance fixed by the awards, and this was termed as •'quota". The production above the quota was paid for at piece-rates. But there was a "norm" also fixed which was much higher than the "quota" and every workman was normally expected to produce the "norm" as the minimum production. If the work man did not produce the "norm", he would be guilty of misconduct and would bl'l liable to dismis sal, as the agreement provided that any ~eliberate deviation from production norms would amount to The standing orders of course go-slow provide that go-slow tactics would amount to mis conduct and may lead to dis:nissal of the workman concerned. tactics. It will be seen therefore that the peculiar feature of the production bonus scheme in force in the petitioner-company is that it has got two bases namely, (i) the quota, and (ii) the norm, the quota In view of the being much lower than the norm. agreement between the parties and the precise defi nition of "go-slow" contained in that agreement, it is clear that workmen are expected to give the "norm" as the minimum production and if there is any deliberate deviation therefrom they are liable to be charged with misconduct in the shape of go-slow and may be dismissed for such misconduct. 1962 Jay Endineari11g Wo,ks, Lld. 'v. Union of India Wanchoo J. 3 S.C.!;t. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 999 The minimum wages and the dearness allowance fixed by the major engineering awards are payable for production upto the quota and thereafter extra payments are made on piece'rate )Jasis. -upto the norm, and even beyond it where the workmen produce beyond the norm. The question that falls for consideration is whether ~uch a system is a typical production bonus system ·described in the case of Bridge and Roqf Company(I). The main dispute centres arqund production between the quota and the norm. The petitioner's case is that the entire payment for product.ion above th.:. quota is payment of production bonus and therefore cannot be taken into account for the purpose of .proyident· fund, ·in view of the decision in Bridge .and Rvoj Gompay(l). The workmen however, con~end that th.e s9beme in force in the petitioner-company is a peculiar one which does not correspond to any standard scheme of produo~ion bonus as known ,in standard books on such: schemes. It is contended that no scheme df\aliag with pro d~otion bonus qr incentive wage has two bases of the kind in force in the petitioner-company. The workmen, therefore, contend that in a scheme of the. kind prevalent in the petitioner-company, pro duction bonus as well understood in industry only starts after the norm and that payment for produc tion between the quota an\} the norm .is nothin'g more than basic wage as, defined in the Act and that the exception 0£ bonus from basic wage will only apply to. that part of th.e payment which is made for '.!'he workmen further production abpve the norm. point out that the straight piece-rate system was in force in the petit~oner-oompp.ny pefore the major engineering awards fixing miniqmm basic wages and dearness allowance. When suo\I minimum basic wages and dearness al!owance were fixed by the (I) [1963) 3 S.C.l.J.. 978 ... r }- I 1962 J c.i y Engineeting Work.s Ltd. v. Union of India Wanchoo,.·J. 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] awards they became applicable to the petitioner company also. It was then that the system was evolved of having a quota which would represent production for the minimum basio wages and dear ness allowance and the rest of the production was to be paid on a piece-rate basis. The change that resulted was that instead of a straight pieoe-rate system, the petitioner-company · introduced the piece-rate system along with a guaranteed wage. The workmen contend that the quota which was to represent payment for production upto allowance was the basic wages and dearness fixed arbitrarily and had no relation productive capacity of the workmen, which the basis for fixing the base or standard in a typical scheme of production bonus. Therefore, what happened was that the petitioner-company though it fixed the quota, expected much higher production even before the agreement of 1958 for a fair day's work and used to pay extra for this finally stabilised production. This matter was by the agreement of 1958 by which norms were fixed and the workmen were expected to give production upto the norms as a rule and any deliberate deviation from such prodnotion amounted to go-slow tactics, resulting in misconduct, which might lead to the dismissal of the workman. The union therefore contends t,hat the real base or stan dard of a typical production bonus scheme in the case of the petitioner-company is not the quota but the nprm, and the payment between the quota and the norm can only be basic wages within the mean ing of the Act and it is only payment above the "norm" which would be production bonus as under stood in industry. It . was conceded on behalf of the workmen in arguments that any payment for production above. the "norm" would be payment of production bonus and would be covered by the judgment of this Court in Bridge and Roof Co. (I) (I) (196313 s.c.R. 971. I 1962 Jay Enginee~ing Wo•ksLtd " Union of Tndi1 Wan, ho• .I. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1001 ). arises where In such cases What is a typical production bonus scheme was considered by this Court in M / s. Titaghur Paper Mills Co Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1) and that has been in Bridge and Roef Onmpany( 2 confirmed It was pointed out that tLe straight piece-rate plan was the simplest of the incentive wage plans. In such a case all payments would be basic wage as defined in s. 2 ( b) of the Act, even though the worker is working under an incentive wage plan. But the straight piece-rate ·difficulty system cannot work. the system of production bonus by tonnage or by an} other standard is introduced. The core 'of such a plan is that there is a base or a standard above which extra payment is earned for extra production in ~ddition to the basic wages which is the payment for work upto the base or standard. Such a plan typically guarantees tin,e wage up to the time represented by sta.ndard performance and gives workers a share in the savings represented by supe rior performance. The typical scheme thus has only one base or standard and time wages are guaranteed upto that base or standard and any production above that base or standard is production bonus. But it is clear that in such a scheme of production bonus the workers are not bound to produce beyond the base or standard and no .disciplinary action can be taken against them for not producing above the base or standard. Learned counsel for the petitio ner has been unable to point out any scheme of production bonus which has two bases or standards as is the case in the petitioner-company in the shape of·a. quota and a non~, the quota being much lower than the norm. What we have to decide is whether in the case of the peculiar system which is in force in the petitioner-company, production bonus, as generally understood, can be said to start immedia tely after the first !Jase (namely, the quota) or it can only start after the second base (namely, the norm). It was qrged on behalf of the petitioner (0 {1959) Supp. 2 8.C.R. 1012. (2) [1963) S S.C,R. 978. I > 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 1962 Jay Engint~1ing Works Ltd. v. Union of India Wanchoo .J. that production bonus schemes have safeguards for both the employer and the employee, and that pro duction upto the norm in addition to the quota in the scheme in force in the petitioner-company is a mere safeguard. Keliance in this connection was placed on a passage in the book "Payment by Results" issued by Iqternational Labour Office, Geneva at p. 164, which is as follow : "No employee will be compelled to produce more than union has stated was fair, but conti nued failure of an employee to co-operate in estaplishing a fair standard or to meet the agreed rate of production of an established standard o:r the rate of production as stated by the union as fair, without a reuson mutu ally satisfactory to both union and company will result in dismissal or, if the circumstances warrant unusm~l treatment; transfer to another department." the heading "Manage That passage appears nnder ment Safeguards", and apparently is concerned primarily with time stu<lies for the purposes of setting up production standards. Therefore that indication that a passage cannot be taken as an typical production bonus scheme can fix two bases or standards, at the best the passage only indicates that disciplinary action may be taken in certain is not cases where the reached by a workman without a reason mutually satisfactory to both union and company. We may add that learned counsel relied on this book which deals with a large number of various types of incen tive wages plans or production bonus plans; but he was unable to draw our attention to any 'Plan in this book which fixes two bases or standards. It is true that when fixing a base or standard the emplo- yers sometimes fix a standard w l;lich is below the the basis production worked out on normal established standard '-,.... 1962 Jay Engine1ring Works Ltd. v. Union of India Wonchoo J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1003 .r '__, ) -. of time studies. Not infrequently such base is fixed at 80 per oentum of the normal production found on time studies and in some oases it has been known to go as low as 67 per oentum. ':'hat ia however a matter of agreement between the em ployer and the employee and depends upon various factors. But the reason behind fixing the base or standard somewhat below the normal which might have been foubd by time studies is to make an allowance for workers who may be little slower than the average and also to allow for some incentive even before the normal is reached so that there · may be an effort on the part of the workman to produce not merely the norma.l but something more than normal. This is helped by fixing the base or standard somewhat below the normal production as found by time studies and gives the workmen a greater incentive to produce without fail not only upto the normal but also beyond the normal. The fact however that the standard or tht1 base may be fixed somewhat below the normal production found by time studies is of no he1p to the petitioner, for the scheme in the present case is not a typical production bonus scheme, if the quota is taken to the base. As we have already indicated, typical production bonus a worker is not bound the base or standard, though he may do so .in In the scheme order that his earnings may go up. the petitioner-company however the worker cannot stop at the quota; he must produce ·up to the norm on pain of being charged with misconduct in the shape of go-slow and being liable to be dismh; sed. It seems to us therefore that the real base or standard which is the core.of a typical production bonus scheme is, in the case of the petitioner-company, the norm. Any payment for production above the norm would be real produc f oroe in the tion bonus under the scheme in petitioner-oompa.ny. The production upto to produce more scheme • in force in 1962 Jov Engineering ·warks Ltd v. Union of India W1mchcio J. 1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] norm i1 the standard which is expected of a work man in the company and payment into that produc tion must be basic wages as defined in the Act, lt is true that this payment is split up into two parts. The first part consists of basic wages and dearness allowance fixed in the awards for produc tion up to the quota and the latter part is payment at piece-rate for production upto the norm; hut the two together in our opinion represent the base or standard of a typical production bonus scheme and so only payment above the norm in the case of the petitioner-company can be properly called production bonus. The mere fact that part of the basic wage as defined in the Act is paid in one form as a time wage and part in another form as a piece rate wage would make no difference to the whole being basic wage within the meaning of the Act. The real base of production bonus scheme in force in the petitioner· company is the norm and not the therefore payment upto the ilorm quota and whether made in one form or the other, is basic wage for the purpose of the Act. It is however · urged on behalf of it is open to the employer to petitioner punish a workman for go-slow, even where wages are paid on a piece-rate basis and in this connection reliance was placed on Mr. Ziakh v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Limited, (I) where it was held that there could be go-slow even where wages are being paid on piece-rate basis. Assuming that to be so, we are of opinion that that does not affect the validity of the conclusion ae to base or standard in the present scheme at which we have arrived. It may be possible to punish for go slow even where wages are paid on a piece-rate system because the employee deliberately does not produce what he had been normally producing. But in the present case, the position has been (I) (1954) I LL.J. 281. • ~\ . ' L 1~. 1 j 1 l .. 1 1 ....( ._ . 1962 Ja.1 Engineering Works Ltd v. Union of lndia Wunchoo J. 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1005 result in dil!missal. crystallised by the agreement and what is go·slow has been precisely defined; usually it is rather a 'difficult matter for the employer to prove a oase of go-slow, more particularly when the piece-rate system of payment is in vogue. Under the agree- ment however any deliberate deviation from production norms immediately becomes go-slow and the workman is liable to disciplinary action which may even In these circumstances when go-slow is precisely defined it is obvious that of two bases to be found in the scheme in the petitioner-company it is the norm which is the real base to be found in all typical production bonus schemes and that it is only when payment is made for produution above the "norm" that it can be said that the· workman is earning industry. It would in our opinion be utterly wrong and unrealistic in the present case to call payment for productio~ between the quota and norm as production bonus when the employee is bound to produce up to to norm practically' on pain of dismissal. · production bonus as generally understood It was further urged that norms have been fixed for a small proportion of workmen employed in the petitioner-company and therefore all pay. ments above the quota which is apparently fixed for all workmen should be treated as production bonus in the case of workmen other than this small proportion. This in our opinion is a disingenuous argument and the union's reply sho~ .·that though norms have been fixed by agreement only with respect to a small proportion of workmen in actual practice there are norms· for all workmen governed by the scheme, these norms being based on normal performance before the agreement of 1958. It is not disputed that these actual norms are much higher than. the quota . 1962 Joy Enginttring Works Ltd. v. Union of India f.Y onchoo J. 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] ·allowance". The . Finally, it was urged that even if the payment for production between the quota and the norm is not production bonus which can be taken out of definition of basic wages in the Act, it should be treated as payment in the nature of "other similar allowance" appearing in s. 2 (b) (ii). We are of opinion that this payment for work done between the quota and the norm cannot be treated as any ''other similar allowances mentioned relevant clause arc dearness overtime allowanee, allowance, bonus, and commission. Any . ·"other similar allowance", must be of the same kine. The paymr.nt in this case for production between quota •tnd the norm has nothing of the nature of an allowance, it is a straight payment for the daily work and must be included in the words defining basic wage i.e., "all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave with wages in accordance with terms of the contraet of employment". in the house.rent allowance, In the view we have taken of the scheme in this case, the petition succeeds partly. We direct that the portion of the payment which is made by the petitioner for production above the "norm" would be production bonus and would be covered by the judgment of this Court in Bridge and Roof Company, but that portion of the payment which is made by petitioner for production up to the quota as well as production between the "quota" and the "norm" is ·basic wage within the meaning of that term in the Act. The petition is therefore partially allowed as indicated above. In the circumstances we pass no order as to costs. Petition allowed in part. ',_