ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the award dated 08.01.2018 in I.D.(T) No.3 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Thirumuruga KirupanandaVariyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational Charitable Trust is a registered trust and the said trust has various medical, engineering and other educational services under it, which is imparting knowledge to students and doing yeomen service to society. The said trust has got various institutions in different places and the petitioner/Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital at Karaikal is one among them and it has about 500 employees on its roles. Out of the total staff, 137 are members of the third respondent union. The petitioner Medical College and Hospital provides the employees with wages, which are the highest in the region and in comparison to other colleges and hospitals. The petitioner is running the hospital on a “No Profit – No Loss” basis and giving free treatment and food with accommodation.

2.1. Whileso, the second respondent, who was claiming to be the representative of the union, raised an industrial dispute for payment of 20% bonus on the ground that the casual employees were entitled to it. The claim was based on two judgments namely (i) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.Rajappa [reported in AIR 1978 SC 548] and (ii) Christian Medical College Vellore Association Vs. Government of India [reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 373]. In the said industrial dispute, the petitioner took a plea that that the second respondent could not raise the dispute in his personal capacity for a trade union that was not at all recognized, that he was not an employee of the petitioner and that the second respondent had no legal right to raise the dispute against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ID Act') provides for representation by an authorized representative, since the dispute had been raised in his personal capacity and as he was not authorized by the members of the union, he had no locus standi to raise the dispute. Before the first respondent, the second respondent did not produce any document to show that the petitioner hospital was run with a motive for profit. After contest, the first respondent allowed the industrial dispute by the impugned award directing the petitioner to pay bonus to their workers for the period from

2012-2013. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drawn notice of this Court with regard to the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), particularly, Section 32 of the Act has specific provisions providing for non application of the Act to certain classes of employees. He also submitted that as per Section 32(v)(b) of the Act, the Universities and Educational institutions are completely exempted from the purview of the Act. Further, Section 32(v)(c) of the Act states that employees employed by institutions (including hospitals, chambers of commerce and social welfare institutions) established not for purposes of profit are also exempted from payment of Bonus Act.

4. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that, it has not been properly adjudicated before the Labour that whether the petitioner hospital is running profitably or not. However, he fairly submitted that the petitioner hospital is inclined to pay the minimum bonus of 8.33 per cent to the employees of the hospital for the year 2012 – 2013, less than the amount already paid to the employees. He submitted that liberty may be granted to the employees of the hospital to raise an industrial dispute, if the hospital is running profitably for subsequent years in the manner known to law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that, even the petitioner hospital is not running profitably, the employees of the petitioner hos