The court upheld the tribunal's award for bonus and wage increases while determining apprentices as workmen entitled to reinstatement, based on their work beyond training.

This Writ Petition is by the Establishment challenging the part of the award in proceeding No.AID No.1/1996 before the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore.

2. The dispute between the petitioner- Establishment and the respondent-Union herein was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’) by the appropriate Government vide order dated 04.05.1996.

3. The reference was to adjudicate 23 points under one head, and 3 points under another head. 23 points under first head were with respect to Charter of demands by the Union and 3 points referred to under second head are;

(a) with respect to the legality of the lockout declared on 21.08.1994;

(b) alleged willful abstinence from work by the workmen after the petitioner-Establishment lifted the lockout with effect from 13.12.1994, and

(c) wages payable for the period from 20.08.1994 to 13.12.1994 and upto 20.02.1995.

4. Though the point for reference speaks about lifting of lockout with effect from 13.12.1994, in the defence statement, the Management has contended that the lifting of lockout was with effect from 13.11.1994.

5. During the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal, the petitioner - Establishment was closed vide order dated 26.02.1999 and the said order has attained finality as the challenge by the respondent-Union to the closure order remained unsuccessful.

6. Since the petitioner - Establishment was closed during the pendency of the proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent-Union restricted their claim to certain points that survived post closure and gave up certain claims qua Charter of demands.

7. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed the award granting certain reliefs to the Union and the reliefs which are under challenge are as under:

a) 15% bonus for the financial year 1993-94 as against claim of 30% bonus.

b) 10% increase in the basic wage against the demand for 30% increase.

c) Reinstatement/Absorption of 63 apprentices discharged in 1994, with backwages from 03.11.1994.

d) Award of wages after lifting of lockout on the premise that the Establishment did not ask the workmen to report to duty.

8. The contention of the Union that lockout declared on 20.08.1994 is illegal is rejected and lockout is declared to be valid from 20.08.1994 till 02.11.1994.

9. As noticed, the Tribunal has also held that the workmen were not called upon to report to duty from 13.12.1994 till 18.02.1995, the date of settlement between the petitioner – Establishment and respondent – Union.

10. The petitioner – Establishment is aggrieved by the part of the award granting certain reliefs to the respondent – Union. The respondent – Union has accepted the award and the extent of the rejection of claim of the respondent – Union has attained finality.

11. Contention relating to grant of 15% bonus:

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the award of bonus in excess of 8.33% for the year 1993-94 is untenable and would refer to the Certificate dated 13.02.1998 issued by the Chartered Accountant which reveals that the provision is made for payment of 8.33% bonus for the year ended 31.03.1994. It is urged that the award for payment of 15% bonus for the financial year 1993-94 by referring to the previous year’s bonus at 12% and 10% exgratia is unjustified.

12. It is urged that declaration of 12% bonus and 10% exgratia declared earlier cannot