Hey Seniors,
I just want to know the procedure to claim the bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act if the employer refuses to pay the amount for a resigned employee even though he fulfills the eligibility under the Bonus Act. Please guide me.
From India, Solan
I just want to know the procedure to claim the bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act if the employer refuses to pay the amount for a resigned employee even though he fulfills the eligibility under the Bonus Act. Please guide me.
From India, Solan
Dear Ram, I would request you kindly to go through the provisions of sec.20 of the P.B Act,1965 dealing with recovery of bonus due from an employer.
From India, Salem
From India, Salem
Sir, it is Section 21 of the PB Act. That too if the bonus is under settlement award or agreement as per provisions under the ID Act. So normally, an ID has to be raised before the conciliation officer so that the conciliation officer, after hearing parties, can issue a certificate of recovery. For raising an industrial dispute, a union is required. If no union is there, an individual can file a complaint with the Labour commissioner.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Kindly approach Labour Department /local court as per your designation. Col.Suresh Rathi
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
My sincere thanks to Ssuhr for the correction of the mistake that crept in due to my oversight.
Three options are available to an employee who is denied a bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
One option is under Section 21, which allows an individual employee to claim a bonus if they cannot be represented by a Trade Union or choose not to have such representation for any reason, provided that the bonus claimed is under an award or a settlement. However, this option is time-limited, i.e., within one year from the date on which the bonus became due.
The second option is under Section 22 of the Act. A dispute under Section 22 is, by statutory fiction, expressly deemed to be an industrial dispute. In the case of Pappu v. Raja Tile and Match Works [(1988) I LLN 643 (Ker) (DB)], it has been definitively stated that when Section 22 applies, it is not possible to argue that the dispute is not an industrial dispute simply because it was raised by an individual employee.
Therefore, an employee who is denied a bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act due to resignation, if not considered a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can make a representation under Section 21 of the PB Act to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for the area. The Assistant Labour Commissioner would conduct an inquiry, determine the bonus amount, provide directions to the employer, and if there is non-compliance, request the District Collector to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act.
In the case of an employee who is or was a workman under the ID Act, they can raise a dispute under Section 22 of the Act before the area Conciliation Officer, who would treat it as a dispute under the ID Act and take necessary actions.
The last option, applicable in any other case, is to lodge a formal complaint under Section 19 of the PB Act with the Inspector. This should be done after the time limit for payment of bonus prescribed under Section 19(a) or (b), as the case may be. Any actions taken by the Inspector under the powers vested in him under Section 27 could result in penalties as prescribed under Section 28 of the Act, serving as a deterrent for any unwilling employer in the disbursement of bonuses.
From India, Salem
Three options are available to an employee who is denied a bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
One option is under Section 21, which allows an individual employee to claim a bonus if they cannot be represented by a Trade Union or choose not to have such representation for any reason, provided that the bonus claimed is under an award or a settlement. However, this option is time-limited, i.e., within one year from the date on which the bonus became due.
The second option is under Section 22 of the Act. A dispute under Section 22 is, by statutory fiction, expressly deemed to be an industrial dispute. In the case of Pappu v. Raja Tile and Match Works [(1988) I LLN 643 (Ker) (DB)], it has been definitively stated that when Section 22 applies, it is not possible to argue that the dispute is not an industrial dispute simply because it was raised by an individual employee.
Therefore, an employee who is denied a bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act due to resignation, if not considered a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can make a representation under Section 21 of the PB Act to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for the area. The Assistant Labour Commissioner would conduct an inquiry, determine the bonus amount, provide directions to the employer, and if there is non-compliance, request the District Collector to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act.
In the case of an employee who is or was a workman under the ID Act, they can raise a dispute under Section 22 of the Act before the area Conciliation Officer, who would treat it as a dispute under the ID Act and take necessary actions.
The last option, applicable in any other case, is to lodge a formal complaint under Section 19 of the PB Act with the Inspector. This should be done after the time limit for payment of bonus prescribed under Section 19(a) or (b), as the case may be. Any actions taken by the Inspector under the powers vested in him under Section 27 could result in penalties as prescribed under Section 28 of the Act, serving as a deterrent for any unwilling employer in the disbursement of bonuses.
From India, Salem
Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.