Summary
The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 raised the eligibility ceiling from Rs 10,000 to Rs 21,000 and the calculation ceiling under Section 12 to Rs 7,000 or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, whichever is higher, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2014. More than 140 writ petitions in 18 High Courts challenged the retrospectivity and the linkage to minimum wages, and High Courts passed divergent interim orders. The Union of India sought transfer of all petitions to the Supreme Court under Article 139A(1), or alternatively to one High Court. The Court declined. The likelihood of divergent views is not by itself a ground for transfer;
Issues
- Whether writ petitions pending in several High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 should be transferred to the Supreme Court under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution on the ground of the likelihood of conflicting decisions.
- Whether, alternatively, such petitions should be consolidated before one High Court.
- What considerations guide the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 139A.
Provisions considered
- Article 139A(1) read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Constitution of IndiaTransfer is a matter of comprehensive assessment of all facts and surrounding factors with no structured formula; mere possibility of divergent interpretations of a central statute cannot justify withdrawing every such challenge to the Supreme Court, and the benefit of the High Courts' views before the questions reach this Court, with preservation of the right of appeal, serves the cause of justice better. (¶¶ 1, 11, 13, 15, 16)
- Sections 2(5), 2(13), 12 and 36, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 as amended by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015The amended Section 12 links the calculation ceiling to the minimum wage fixed by the 'appropriate Government', which under Section 2(5) may be the Central or a State Government, and Section 36 vests the power of exemption in the appropriate Government; these State-specific elements make decision by the jurisdictional High Courts appropriate. (¶¶ 4.1, 4.2, 12, 12.1, 12.2)
- Section 2(g) ('scheduled employment'), Minimum Wages Act, 1948The Explanation to amended Section 12 adopts this definition, so the bonus ceiling varies with State minimum-wage notifications, reinforcing the State-wise character of the controversy. (¶¶ 4.1, 10, 12.1)
Held
- Although the petitions raise substantially the same questions of law, variance in questions and facts is likely because the appropriate Government, including State Governments, fixes the minimum wages to which the amended Section 12 is linked and exercises the exemption power under Section 36; decision of individual petitions by the jurisdictional High Courts is in the parties' best interest. (¶¶ 11, 12, 12.1, 12.2)
- Having the benefit of the jurisdictional High Courts' views before the questions are taken up here, if occasion arises, better serves justice and protects the right to seek judicial review after the first decision (Lunawat Construction). In Cummins Technologies a three-Judge Bench declined transfer of challenges to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act despite the plea of nationwide implications, requesting expeditious disposal instead. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 14)
- The likelihood of divergence of views, given the framework of the statute, is not a ground for transfer, nor is there reason to transfer the matters to any one High Court, since petitions should be decided in their own factual background and applicable law; the decision in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India need not be considered. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Transfer petitions dismissed; all interim stay orders vacated; parties may seek expeditious hearing in the respective High Courts, which are requested to assign the writ petitions reasonable priority.