In TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 884-895 OF 2016- SC- Supreme Court declines to transfer to itself writ petitions on same question of law pending in different High Courts; says variance in some factual aspects likely to occur due to innate role of the state govts Justices Dinesh Maheshwari & Vikram Nath

Read Order:  UNION OF INDIA ETC. V.  THE UNITED PLANTERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA ETC. ETC. & ORS.

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, July 12, 2022: The Supreme Court has declined to transfer various writ petitions pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Apex Court, saying there is likelihood of divergence of views looking at the framework of the statute itself.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath dismissed the present batch of petitions preferred under Article 139 A (1) read with order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, wherein the petitioners led by the Union of India prayed for transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Court assailing the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015. 

The bench was of the opinion that the questions raised in the respective writ petitions may have to be addressed with reference to the relevant decision of the appropriate government depending on the nature of establishment and that may include the particular state government too. 

In the wake of challenge to the Amendment Act of 2015 in different High Courts, and the respective High Courts having passed different interim orders, the petitioners led by the Union of India were seeking transfer of all the pending writ petitions to this Court.

After giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, the Court observed that the writ petitions related with the present batch of matters might carry substantially the same questions of law concerning the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 but, for a variety of other relevant reasons, the Court stated that it was disinclined to transfer these matters in this Court or even to one High Court.

Reliance was placed on the cases, namely Union of India v. M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt Ltd and Lunawat Construction Company v. Union of India & Anr. 

The Court further observed that in the scheme of the Act of 1965 and in relation to the questioned amendments, variance in some of the questions and some of the factual aspects was likely to occur because of the innate role of the appropriate Government in the ultimate calculation of bonus with respect to certain employees in terms of the amended Section 12 of the Act of 1965. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court was also of the view that thus, when  the wage ceiling in terms of the amended Section 12 has its correlation also with the minimum wages for the scheduled employment as fixed by the appropriate Government, the decision on the questions being raised in the respective writ petitions, may have to be addressed with reference to the relevant decision of the appropriate Government, depending on the nature of establishment; and that may include the particular State Government too. 

Additionally, the Court observed that it needs to multiply the reference to various other orders passed by this Court relating to the prayer for transfer as, eventually, the decision to transfer or not, to this Court or to one High Court, needs to be taken by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 139A of the Constitution of India with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances, the Court noted. 

Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Court was of the considerate opinion that transferring of the pending writ petitions from the respective High Courts cannot be called for. The likelihood of divergence of views, looking at the framework of the statute itself, cannot be a ground for transfer, the Court remarked. 

Hence, the prayer for transfer of the subject petitions was declined.