Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010028412016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6525/2016 INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONSOF THE WEST BENGAL SOCIEITIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1961 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE SITUATED AT 6, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, KOLKATA- 700001 AND HAVING ITS VARIOUS BRANCHES INCLUDING AN ASSAM BRANCH AS WELL AS A SURMA VALLEY BRANCH. THE ASSAM BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER HASITS OFFICE AT 295, MOTHER TERESA ROAD GUWAHATI- 781024, IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, THE SURMA VALLEY BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER IS SITUATED AT CLUB ROAD, SILCHAR- 788001, IN THE DIST. OF CACHAR, ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSAM BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER, SHRI SANDIP GHOSH, R/O 295 MOTHER TERESA ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781024, IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE GOVT. OF INDIA LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT LABOUR RC BRANCH Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM S ACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM. 4:THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER ASSAM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI- 781016 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP METRO ASSAM. 5:ASSAM CHAH KARMACHARI SANGHA A TRADE UNION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRADE UNION ACT 1926 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AMOLAPATTY DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY For petitioner/applicant(s) : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate Ms. N. Upadhyay, Advocat For respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Dev. Choudhury, Deputy SGI Ms. A. Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr. P. Kalita, Advocate – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MRs. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 05.08.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. N. Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the petitioner; and Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Ms. A. Bhattacharrya, learned Advocate for respondent No. 5. Page No.# 3/7 The petitioner, which is a society registered under the provisions of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 and is the pioneer and the oldest association of tea producers in India, has challenged the constitutionality and validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 (in short, “Act of 2015”), which received the assent of the President on 31.12.2025 but was published in the Gazette of India only on 01.01.2016. The primary challenge put up by the petitioner is to the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Act of 2015, which provides that the amending provisions of the Act shall be deemed to have come into force from the 1st Day of April, 2014. As a result of such amendment, two changes have been made in the Act of 1965, namely, (i) In Section 2(13), which defines the expression “employee”, the ceiling on salary or wages has been enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 21,000/- and the other (ii) amendment of Section 12 of the Act, by which the amount in question has been raised from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 7,000/-, or the minimum wage for the scheduled employee as fixed by the government, whichever is higher. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that by virtue of the provision contained in Section 19(b), the time limit for payment of bonus is eight months from the closing of the accounting year. The time limit for payment of bonus for the accounting year, which ended on 31.03.2015, would be eight months from the closing of the accounting year, which would fall on 30.11.2015. The expression “accounting year” has been defined in Section 2. It has further been submitted that Section 2(1)(iii)(a) defines the expression “in any other case” not falling in Clause (i) and (ii) as the year Page No.# 4/7 commencing on the 1st day of April. The contention, therefore, is that because of the retrospective amendment, the financial liability of the employer would have to be recomputed and would have to be enhanced in respect of the period where, perhaps, a deposit would already have been made in compliance of the provision of Section 19(b) even before the assent of the President was received on 31.12.2015. On that ground, it has been urged that the retrospective amendment is arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 for the reason that it casts a liability on the employers which hitherto was not known to them. It would be relevant in this context to state here that the said amendment had been challenged in various High Courts on similar grounds, namely, on the retrospectivity as also on the validity of the linkage to the minimum wages with regard to the calculation of bonus. To avoid duplicity of judgments, transfer petitions were filed before the original civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, seeking transfer of all such writ petitions pending in different courts to the Supreme Court. However, such a prayer was rejected, giving liberty to the parties to request the respective High Courts for expeditious hearing and disposal of the pending writ petitions. The High Courts were also asked to proceed with the matters expeditiously, assigning such cases a reasonable priority. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate has fairly submitted that two of the High Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the amendment. But for the fiscal responsibility cast upon the company, there would be no other ground on which the constitutionality of the amendment could be questioned. He has particularly referred to the judgment delivered by the Page No.# 5/7 Madras High Court on 12.04.2024 in WP(C) No. 6958/2016 and other connected writ petitions and by the Patna High Court on 25.09.2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15379/2017. With respect to the retrospectivity of the Amending Act, the Patna High Court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jayam and Company vs. Assistant Commissioner and another, (2016) 15 SCC 125, wherein it was held that even with respect to fiscal legislation, the competent Legislatures have the power to make provisions retrospectively. A law cannot be held to be unreasonable merely because it operates retrospectively. The unreasonability must lie in some other additional factors. The retrospective operation of a fiscal statute would have to be found to be unduly oppressive and confiscatory before it can be held to be unreasonable so as to violate the Constitutional norms. With respect to the degree of unforeseen or unreasonable financial burden because of such retrospective legislation, it was held that it could be a factor which might be required to be looked into. Before dealing with the afore-noted issue, we deem it appropriate to state that there is practically no challenge to the legislative competence of the Parliament in bringing about the said amendment. The only question is whether it could be said to be unreasonable or vilolative of any provision of the Constitution. Times without number, the Supreme Court has held that in case of any challenge to the Constitutional validity of any provision in a statute, the Court exercising the power of judicial review must remain conscious to the limitations Page No.# 6/7 of judicial intervention, especially in matters relating to legitimacy of economic and fiscal legislation. Even otherwise, with the amendment, the re-computation of bonus and the difference, which will have to be borne by the companies, would only relate to financial year 2014 and 2015, which cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be oppressive or unreasonable. The Act of 2015 provides for payment of bonus on the basis of profit, or on the basis of production or productivity and the matters connected therewith. The amendments only bring in its train more employees under the beneficial legislation and it also enhances the limit of salary or wage on which the bonus is payable. We reiterate that the retrospective operation is only for one financial year and the benefits of those legislations outweighs the difficulties faced by the companies, which would have already completed their part of the obligation of paying bonus to their employees. This, in our estimation, is not unreasonable, nor does it create any huge burden, howsoever big the company is in terms of its enlistment of labour. Mr. Das has also informed that 47 of the tea garden owners, which are constituents of the petitioner’s association, have already paid the bonus in terms of the amended Act and the tea growers/garden owners in other establishments also have done their part in re-computing the bonus amount and paying the same to the employees. Thus, in the absence of any challenge to the competence of the Parliament in enacting such amendment, and the amendment, not in any manner unreasonable or violative of any of the fundamental rights of the Page No.# 7/7 Constitution, ought not to be interfered with. Thus, we dismiss this writ petition as being without merits. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant