THE BURMAH-SHELL REFINERIES LIMITED versus THEIR WORKMEN
The Tribunal was correct in awarding the same rate of bonus to clerical and labour staff, since there was no inflexible practice or overriding reason to differentiate, and all workmen as a whole contribute to the company's profits. There was no demonstrated basis for awarding a lower rate to clerical staff.
- Parties
- Appellant: The Burmah-Shell Refineries Limited; Respondent: Their Workmen
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 01 February 1961
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Award Dated May 18, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (i. T.) No. 106 of 1955
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Bonus, Wage Discrimination, Industrial Tribunals, Clerical and Labour Staff
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Burmah-Shell Refineries Limited
Appellant
Their Workmen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Award Dated May 18, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (i. T.) No. 106 of 1955
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bonus to clerical staff must be paid at a lower rate than labour staff in an oil company.
- 2 Whether the industrial tribunal was correct in awarding bonus to clerical staff at the same rate as labour staff.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal was correct in awarding the same rate of bonus to clerical and labour staff, since there was no inflexible practice or overriding reason to differentiate, and all workmen as a whole contribute to the company's profits. There was no demonstrated basis for awarding a lower rate to clerical staff.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment