Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited vs The State of Punjab and others

B.R. Tuli, J.—Respondents 3, 4 and 5 made applications u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Jullundur, claiming certain amounts from the petitioner-company. One of the items claimed was bonus for certain years. Respondents 3 claimed bonus for the year 1965-66 and 1966-67 amounting to Rs. 750/- on the plea that his monthly earning from the petitioner-company was Rs. 150/- per mensem and the company had declared a bonus of 20 per cent for each year. Respondent 4 claimed Rs. 1000/- on account of bonus for the period from June 7, 1966, to October 26, 1967, on the ground that his pay was Rs. 300/- per mensem and the bonus was claimed at the rate of 20 per cent which had been declared by the company. Respondent 5 claimed Rs. 1,313/- on account of bonus for the years 1964-65 1965-66, and 1966-67, and from April 1, 1967 to October 22, 1967, at the rate of 20 per cent on the monthly wage of Rs. 150/-. All the claims of the said respondents were denied by the petitioner-company in its written statement filed to those applications which were consolidated and tried together. The petitioner-company, however stated that respondent 3 was entitled to Rs. 9.36 on account of bonus for 1966-67, respondent 4 was entitled to Rs. 67.50 for 1966-67, and Rs. 49.76 for 1967-68, while respondent 5 was entitled to Rs. 18.52 for the year 1966-67. The Labour Court after taking evidence decided that the company had declared bonus at the rate of 20 percent and decreed the claims of the said respondents for the amounts claimed by them as bonus and some other amounts. That order of the Labour Court with regard to bonus only has been challenged in this writ petition, to which written statements have been filed by respondents 3, 4 and 5.

The principal argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-company is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the applications of the said respondents in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, which reads as under:

Where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of this Act to an establishment in public sector, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of the industrial dispute in force in a State and the provisions of that Act or, as the case may be, such law, shall, be save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly.

In the instant case the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3, 4 and 5 was with regard to the bonus payable to the latter and that bonus could only be claimed under the provisions of the Payment of bonus Act, 1965, as is provided in section 34 of the said Act. The claim of the respondents was, therefore, with regard to the payment bonus under the said Act, and since the petitioner-company did not admit their claim there arose a dispute between the parties which, according to the terms of section 22 ibid, is to be deemed as an industrial dispute, and for the decision of that dispute recourse has to be had to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under that Act, an industrial dispute can be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal on a reference made to it by the State Government. An industrial dispute under that Act cannot be decided on an application made either by a workman or by the management before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of that Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the applications by respondents 3 to 5 were not entertainable by the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the stand taken by the petitioner-company that it had not declared the bonus as alleged by the said respondents and indicating the amounts due to them on account of bonus which were far less than the amounts claimed by them Apart from this specific plea taken by the petitioner-company, the entire claim of each of the said respondents was denied. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner-company did not deny that it had declared bonus at the rate of 20 percent for the years for which claim was made by the said respondents. The pleading in the written statement clearly showed that this allegation was denied and the amount of bonus due to each respondent according to the rates declared by the petitioner-company was mentioned. The Labour Court took evidence on the point and on the basis of the depositions of respondents 3 to 5 decided that the petitioner-company had declared a bonus of 20 per cent for the years in question. This is what the Labour Court could not do in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act. It was no a case of mere computation of the amount of bonus, but involved a finding as to the rate of the bonus declared and paid by the petitioner-company. In these circumstances the Labour should have dismissed the applications as incompetent and should have directed respondents 3, 4 and 5 to have the matter decided by employing the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act for making a reference to the Labour Court.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner company also argued that respondents 3, 4 and 5 had no right to make the applications u/s 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act because, on the dates those applications were filed, they were not in the employment of the petitioner-company and were rot its workmen. By that time they had gone out of the employment of the petitioner-company. It is not necessary to decide this point in view of the decision on the first point of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to take cognizance of the matter.

For the reasons given above, this petition is accepted and the order of the Labour Court qua the amount of bonus allowed to respondents 3, 4 and 5 is quashed. In the circumstances of the case. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.