BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (APPELLANT) VS. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH (RESPONDENT) (DEL)

Section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 pertains to the eligibility criteria for payment of bonus to employees in establishments. Here's an explanation of the section:

Section 32: Conditions for eligibility to bonus

(v) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, an employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under this Act, if he has been dismissed from service for—

(c) riotous or disorderly behavior while on the premises of the establishment;

This section specifies one of the conditions that disqualify an employee from receiving bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act. According to Section 32(v)(c), if an employee has been dismissed from service due to riotous or disorderly behavior while on the premises of the establishment, they will be disqualified from receiving bonus.

In other words, if an employee engages in unruly or disruptive conduct that disturbs the order or peace within the establishment, leading to their dismissal, they will not be eligible to receive bonus as per the provisions of this section.

It is important to note that this is a specific disqualification clause related to bonus eligibility and does not necessarily impact other employment rights or entitlements of the employee.

Brief facts:

The Batra Hospital Employees Union claims, in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to be aggrieved by an award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Karkardooma (hereinafter referred to “the Tribunal”), which holds that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 do not apply to the Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre.

Decision:

Even charitable hospitals are covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965

Reason:

Upon examining the determinative tests to determine whether an establishment qualifies as being run "not for the purpose of profit" and is entitled to the benefits of Section 32(V)(c) of the Act, it is difficult to accept the respondent-Hospital's claim at face value. The Tribunal found that the Hospital did, in fact, earn profits, but it discounted this fact by reasoning that the profits were reinvested to improve the Hospital's services. The Tribunal held that the Hospital had expanded from a small institution in 1986 to a 312-bedded hospital at the time of the Award. However, it is important to note that this expansion would have continued over the nearly decade and a half that the litigation has been pending before the court.

The Tribunal favored the respondent-Hospital by relying on the "object of the Trust" as stated in its Bye-laws. The Tribunal's observation in paragraph 15 of the impugned Award states that one of the objectives of the trust is to establish hospitals or other medical institutions to provide medical relief to the needy, conduct medical and clinical research, and offer medical assistance to the poor. This finding, in my opinion, is presumptuous. The Tribunal does not explain how or why it presumes that a Trust that establishes hospitals providing free treatment to needy patients is not working "for the purpose of profit."

In this context, it should be acknowledged that expecting profit while running an enterprise is not sinful, and running a hospital on commercial lines is not immoral. However, earning profit would entail the responsibility of sharing a portion of it with the employees or workers who significantly contribute to its generation. That is all the Act requires, and it would be unconscionable for the enterprise to evade this responsibility.

Consequently, the respondent-Hospital cannot be considered as established "not for the purpose of profit" as required by Section 32(v)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal's Award, which relies on assumptions and presumptions without considering the material evidence on record, including witness statements and affidavits, and applies tests not found in the Act, must be deemed as perverse and cannot be sustained based on facts or in law.

Therefore, the Tribunal's impugned Award is set aside and quashed. The respondent-Hospital is declared to be covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and is not entitled to the benefits of Section 32(v)(c) thereof. The reference made by the Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, to the Tribunal through Notification No F.26 (66)/2002-Lab./2586-90, dated 1st February 2002, is answered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent-Hospital. Consequential relief shall be granted to the workmen of the respondent-Hospital who petitioned the Tribunal, as well as to all other workmen of the respondent-Hospital. In the event of any default by the respondent-Hospital in disbursing the relief, the workmen are free to file appropriate applications with the Tribunal. These applications shall be decided expeditiously by the Tribunal, considering the prolonged duration of this matter, during which the workmen of the respondent-Hospital have been unjustly deprived of their rightful entitlement for nearly fifteen years.