Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 95
PATNA HIGH COURT
Satyeshwar Roy and B.P.Singh JJ.
Habibur Rahman Ansari
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1401 of 1989 ;
Decided On : MARCH 08, 1990
An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable for computation of bonus, even if the employer disputes the workman's right to claim benefits, provided the workman proves that he has an existing right to get the benefit.
Headnote:
BONUS ACT - SECTION 22, 33-C(2), 39 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 10 - INTERPRETATION - COMPUTATION OF BONUS - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 33-C(2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of TISCO, was discharged from service in 1975. An industrial dispute was raised, and the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with full back wages. TISCO challenged the award in a writ petition, which was disposed of on compromise. The compromise included a payment of Rs. 22,000 to the petitioner in settlement of all claims under the award, including bonus. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of bonus from 1976-77 to 1981-82. The Labour Court held that the application was not maintainable, as the dispute was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 22 of the Bonus Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Labour Court had erred in its interpretation of the terms of the compromise and in holding that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. The Court found that the compromise did not include bonus, and that the petitioner was entitled to claim bonus separately. The Court also held that the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 22 of the Bonus Act, as it did not relate to the bonus payable under the Act or the application of the Act to an establishment in the public sector. The Court further held that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable, as it was a dispute relating to the quantum of available surplus, which is not covered by Section 22 of the Bonus Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court correctly interpreted the terms of the compromise on the basis of which the writ petition had been disposed of. 2. Whether the Labour Court was correct in law in holding that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable and his remedy was under Section 22 of the Bonus Act i.e., by a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Labour Court had erred in its interpretation of the terms of the compromise, as the compromise did not include bonus and the petitioner was entitled to claim bonus separately. 2. The Court held that the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 22 of the Bonus Act, as it did not relate to the bonus payable under the Act or the application of the Act to an establishment in the public sector. 3. The Court held that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable, as it was a dispute relating to the quantum of available surplus, which is not covered by Section 22 of the Bonus Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Labour Court, and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for computing the amount the petitioner was entitled to as bonus for the period 1976-77 to 1981-82.
Satyeshwar Roy, J.
1. The petitioner, now an employee of respondent No. 2, Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO), was discharged with effect from 24-12-1975 from his service by Indian Tube Co. Ltd., now a Division of TISCO. An industrial dispute was raised and the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that discharge of the petitioner was unjustified and ordered for re-instatement with full back wages by award dated 28-11-1981. India Tube Co. Ltd. filed C.W.J.C. No. 609 of 1982 (R) challenging the award That writ petition was disposed of on compromise which was recorded on 9-7-1982.
2. TISCO said the petitioner Rs. 22,000 as per terms of compromise. He was allowed to join his duty by TISCO and thereafter his wage was paid. According to the petitioner, TISCO did not pay him the bonus, which he was entitled from 1976-77 to 1981-82 under the Bonus Act, 196S (the Bonus Act). He filed an application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I. D. Act) for computation of the bonus from 1976-77 to 1981-82. Alongwith the application he annexed statement showing the amount he was entitled to receive as bonus for the aforesaid years. Statement of calculation has been marked as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The stand taken by TISCO before the Labour Court was that Rs. 22,000 had been paid by TISCO to the petitioner in settlement of all claims inclusive of bonus as per terms of the compromise recorded in the writ petition. It also took the stand that the application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act was not maintainable.
3. The Labour Court held that the sum of Rs. 22,000 included bonus on the petitioner was entitled to claim it separately. Relying on Major D. Aranha V/s. Universal Radiators Coimbatoor and Ors. 1975(1)LLJ 254 i 1975 Lab IC 1180, the Labour Court held that as the claim of the petitioner was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec. 22 of the Bonus Act, the claim for computation of bonus was not maintainable under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act. Copy of the order of Labour Court is Annexure 3 to the writ petition! Correctness of that order is the subject-matter of this writ petition.
4. Two questions arise for adjudication in this case:
(a) Whether the Labour Court has correctly interpreted the terms the compromise on the basis of which the writ petition had been disposed of.
(b) Whether the Labour Court was correct in law in holding that the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act was not maintainable and his remedy was under Sec. 22 of the Bonus Act i.e., by a reference under Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act.
5. So far point No. (a) is concerned, it is necessary to reproduce the terms of the compromise, which is part of order dated 9-7 1982, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It run as follows:
(i) The petitioner shall pay to respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs. 22,000 by way of total settlement of all claims under the award upto 30th June, 1982.
(ii) Respondent No. 2 shall be paid his full pay with effect from 1st of July, 1982 ; provided that respondent No. 2 joins the duty by the 15th of July, 1982.
(iii) The provident fund amount of Rs. 8918.87 which has already been withdrawn by respondent No. 2, shall be liable to be deposited by him in Provident Fund Account. The mode of payment will be by adjustment to be made by the petitioner from out of sum Rs. 22,000 which the petitioner has been liable to pay to respondent No. 2 as per the terms contained in Paragraph 1 aforesaid.
(iv) The amount of gratuity already withdrawn by respondent No. 2 shall not be liable to be refunded by respondent No. 2 but shall be liable to be adjusted at the time of his superannuation in due course, subject to the provisions of any law in force at the time.
Parties have agreed that so far as the payment of bonus is concerned, they shall calculate it in accordance with law and on due calculation such amount as may be due to res
