U P ELECTRICITY SUPPLY GO LIMITED Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by special leave arise but of an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad following two references dated 24/01/1962 by the State of U. P. under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The subject matter of both the references was, whether the employers (the appellants before this Court) should be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1960-61, and if so, at what rate?

(2.) THE U. P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd. (the appellants herein) had two electricity undertakings, one at Allahabad and the other at Lucknow. It carried on the business of generation and distribution of electricity under two licences one for Allahabad and the other for Lucknow within the areas specified therein. In pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 12 of the said licences the U. P. Electricity Board compulsorily acquired the said undertakings of the company including the business of generation and distribution of electricity in the areas covered by the licences with effect from 16/09/1964. THE Tribunal had however entered on the reference on 29/01/1962 and its proceedings continued down to 16/11/1965 when a common award was made directing the employers to pay three months' basic wages as bonus to all the workmen entitled thereto for the year 1960-61. THEse appeals are against the said award.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant referred to certain provisions in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as illustrative of his argument that in cases where legislature felt it necessary to provide for relief to workers even after the closure or transfer of an industry it made express provisions therefor. In particular reference was made to Ss. 25-FF and 25-FFF to show that by the first of the above provisions the legislature had provided for compensation to certain workmen. where the ownership or management of an undertaking was transferred, whether voluntarily or by operation of law. Similarly compensation had been provided for in S. 25-FFF for workmen in cases where on the closing down of an undertaking for any reason whatever workmen were to be treated as having been retrenched thus giving them the benefit of retrenchment compensation. Reference was also made to S. 33-C of the Act under which a workman could approach the appropriate Government for recovery of moneys due to him under, a settlement or an award under the provisions of Ch. V-A of the Act. In our view, by these provisions the legislature sought to give redress to work in the contingencies mentioned in the said sections which are of common occurrence. These sections do not lay down that on the closure or transfer of an undertaking the employers were to be relieved of all other obligations to or claims of the workers. The preamble to the Industrial Disputes Act which expressly aims at preventing strikes and lockouts is in pari materia to the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act i.e. "to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes" cannot be read down to mean that the statute was being enacted only for the purpose of securing industrial peace so far as the future working of the industry was concerned. No doubt the main object of the Act is to ensure industrial peace but equally important is the purpose behind the Act that the workmen should not be deprived of by the legitimate share of profits made by the industry. The central object of the Act is to preserve industrial harmoney which would be meaningless if the workers of a particular industry were to be deprived of benefits of services rendered in the past.