JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These appeals involve an identical question and therefore are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of several writ petitions by a common judgment dated 30.12.1998. The primary issue was whether a petition in terms of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) is maintainable and whether daily wager can claim minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short the `Bonus Act').

3. Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief: The respondents were employed on daily wages basis. The Labour Court by order dated 6.7.1991 held that the respective applicants were entitled to be paid minimum statutory bonus within the stipulated time. The decision was rendered on a reference made. Primary stand before the High Court was that daily wagers cannot get bonus. Additionally, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such a matter. The High Court held that since there was a statutory obligation to pay minimum bonus the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was maintainable.

4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted inter-alia as follows:

(i) the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue.

(ii) the Bonus Act was not applicable.

5. The Act has application only when the concerned employees get salaries or wages per mensum. Dearness allowance is not payable to daily wagers. The reference to Section 8 of the Bonus Act to decide eligibility was not correct. Merely because a person is working for 30 days in a year, that does not entitle him to bonus.

6. Stand of the appellants that Section 2(11) of the Bonus Act is applicable only to persons who receive monthly salary, has also not been dealt with.

7. The claim was made for the period from 1977 to 1986. But the application was filed long after in 1991. The High Court was wrong in saying that only the quantum and not the question of liability can be decided in a reference under Section 22. Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of execution application. Section 33-C(2) relates to pre existing right and the claim for bonus cannot be included within the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

8. In Civil Appeal No.87/2002, 8490/2001 and 331/2002 the grievance is that there was no claim for any interest. But the Labour Court and the High Court wrongly decided the entitlement of interest @12%.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Sections 10 and 11 of Bonus Act deal with payment of minimum bonus. Section 22 of Bonus Act uses the expression `bonus payable'. It relates to the quantum and varies between minimum and the maximum. The High Court was right in holding that the application in terms of Section 33-C(2) of the Act was maintainable.

10. The scope and ambit of Section 33-C(2) has been examined by this Court in several cases.

11. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Birendra Bhandari (2006 (10) SCC 211) it has been stated as under:

"7. The benefit which can be enforced under

Section 33-C(2) is a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. 8. In the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001 (1) SCC 73), this Court held as under:

"7. When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination of a workman is justified or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or partial back wages or none. Such a question is one