The provisions of Section 33 of the Bonus Ordinance, 1965, which allowed for the payment of interim bonus in pending disputes, were held to be invalid by the Supreme Court.

Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This application by Some Valley Portland Cement Company Limited (Lime Stone quarries), Baulia (hereinafter referred to as "the company") is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for an appropriate writ quashing the orders dated the 23rd September, 1965 (Annexure III) and 1st December, 1965 (Annexure V), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna (Opposite Party No. 2), directing payment of interim bonus to the workmen for the year 1962.

2. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was a public limited company with its Head Office at 11, Clive Row, Calcutta and had works at Japla, in the district of Palamau, but the lime stone quarries were at Baulia in the district of Shahabad. The petitioner carried on business of quarrying lime stone at Baulia and manufactured cement at Japla. The petitioner had employed a number of workmen for carrying on the said business. Certain items of work were being carried on through contractors or commission agents and they employed their own labour for the work entrusted to them. The workmen employed by the contractors and commission agents work under the direct control of those contractors and commission agents and the petitioner had no hand in employing those workmen who were working under the contractors and commission agents. Later on, a dispute arose regarding payment of bonus for the years 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 to the workmen employed by the petitioner in the quarries. The parties jointly requested the Union Government to refer the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Patna, and the Union Government, by order dated the 4th March, 1965, referred the said dispute for adjudication to Shri S.C. Prasad, Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal at Patna (Opposite Party No. 2). This reference was registered as Reference No. 2 of 1965. On the 29th May, 1965, the President of India was pleased to promulgate the Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1965 (No. 3 of 1965) hereinafter referred to as the "Bonus Ordinance". In the same year the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (Act XXI of 1965)--hereinafter referred to as the "Bonus Act"--received the assent of the President on the 25th September, 1965, and by this Act the Bonus Ordinance was repealed. Shri S. C. Prasad, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, by his order dated the 23rd September, 1965 (Annexure III), directed the petitioner to pay interim bonus for the year 1962 on the basis "as mentioned in Sec.10 of the Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1965, by 29-11-65". This order was passed by opposite party No. 2 suo motu, and there was no application before him by anyone for that relief. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the said Presiding Officer for clarification of the said order dated the 23rd September, 1965, and this application is annexure IV to the Writ Application. Opposite party No. 2 heard the parties and by his order dated the 1st December, 1965 (Annexure V) held that the petitioner was liable to pay the bonus to the employees employed by the contractors and commission agents as well. The petitioner company is aggrieved by these two orders of opposite party No. 2, and has filed this application for an appropriate writ for the quashing of those two orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, in the first instance, that the order dated the 23rd September, 1965 was erroneous in law and without jurisdiction for the sample reason that the said order was not justified in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 5-8-1966 in the cases of Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Mill Mazdoor Union Civil Appeal No. 187 of 1966: (reported in AIR 1967 SC 691); The Management of Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. V/s. Union of India, Writ Petn. No. 3 of 1966; and the Travancore Rayons Ltd. V/s. Union of India, Writ Petn. No. 32 of 1966.

4. Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that opposite party No. 2 had passed the