Skip to main content

80G certificate alone does not exonerate institutions from paying bonus

In BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION vs BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH., the Delhi High Court held that Section 32(v)(c) of the Act, which excludes from the purview of the Act employees working with hospitals “established not for purposes of profit”. It opined that the provision must be interpreted expansively rather than restrictively, observing, “In the case of an institution which is making profits, therefore, the judicial effort, clearly, has to aim at ensuring bonus, to its workers, rather than denying the same by resorting to any hyper-technical interpretation of the statute. Of course, if the statute unambiguously excludes an institution, then, needless to say, it is no part of the duty of the court to bend backwards to encompass the institution within the ambit thereof.”

It then went on to reject the reliance placed by the Hospital on the exemption granted to it under Section 80-G (5) of the I-T Act, noting that under the I-T Act, providing medical relief, ipso facto, is treated as a ‘charitable purpose’. It therefore ruled, “In view of the somewhat peculiar definition of “charitable purpose”, contained in clause (15) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, it is not possible to regard grant of a certificate, under Section 80-G (5) of the Income Tax Act, as automatically excepting the holder of such certificate from the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act.”

The Court further explained, “That apart, the object and purpose of the Income Tax Act, and of the Payment of Bonus Act, are completely distinct and different from each other. Per sequitur, the purpose of grant of exemption, in respect of donations made to an organization certified under Section 80-G of the former Act, would be distinct from the purpose of granting immunity, to an organization or institution, from the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act, under Section 32(v)(c) thereof. No attempt has been made, before me, to equalize, or even analogise, the objects and purposes of the two statutes. What is being sought to be contended is that recognition under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act would, for that very reason, exclude the institution from the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act. I am unable to agree with the said contention.”

It then noted that the Hospital was, in fact, earning profits and rapped the Hospital for not complying with the provisions of the 1965 Act. Quashing the impugned award, it observed, “It has to be realised, in this context, that expectation of profit, while running an enterprise, is not a sin. Neither is it immoral to run a hospital on commercial lines. However, earning of such profit would necessarily entail the responsibility of sharing some part of such profit with the employees or workmen, whose effort have significantly contributed towards the earning of the profit. That is all that the Act requires, and it would be ex facie unconscionable, for the enterprise, to shirk the said responsibility.”

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/grant-certificate-s-80-g-t-act-not-automatically-exempt-certificate-holder-payment-bonus-delhi-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more