WORKMEN OF HMT Vs. PREDG OFFICER NATIONAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Arts.226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools I & II, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the HMT I & II) lepresented by the HMT Employees Association have called in question the correctness of the award dt. 16-4-69 passed by the National Tribunal, Calcutta, in Ref. No. NIT 6 of 1967 and published in the Gazette of India dt May 10, 1969, in so far it affects the interest of the workmen of HMT I and II adversely. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award to the extent it is prejudicial to their interests.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly these: HMT Ltd. was floated as a Government Company by the Central Govt. in the year 1953 Its initial share capital was in the order of Rs 3.9 crores and the whole of it was subscribed by the Government of India It was later on raised to Rs. 12 crores The first factory of the Company was started at Bangalore. The said factory was engaged in the manufacture of heavv machine tools such as lathes, radial drills grinding machines, turrets, milling machines, special purpose machines, etc and soon commenced to make profits. A second factory was also started at Bangalore by the said Company in or about the year 196ft. These two factones came to be railed as HMT I & II, Bangalore. Similarly, a third factory known as HMT III was started by the Company in or about the year 1962 at Pinjere in Punjab The Company started a watch factory at Bangalore in 1961; HMT IV at Kalamserry in Kerala in 1963 and HMT V at Hyderabad in 1964 Disputes having arisen between the workmen in HMT I & II, Bangalore, and HMT IV Kalamserry and the management, the Central Govt. referred under Sub-sees (1A) & (5) of S 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the National Tribunal at Calcutta the following points of dispute for adjudication by its order dt October 16, 1967 : (i) Whether the demand of the workmen in the HMT I & II at Bangalore for payment of bonus at the rate of 20 per cent of the^r salary for the, year 1966-67 is justified? If not, to what quantum of bonus are they entitled? (ii)Whether the wqrkmen of HMT at Kalamaserry, Pinjore and Hyderabad are entitled to any bonus and if so, what should be the quantum of such bonus? (iii) Whether the, demand of the workmen of HMT I & II at Bangalore, and of the HMT IV at Kalamserry that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of a consolidated Profit and Loss Account for all the units and all activities and not on the ba,sis of Profit and Loss Accounts of the; separate units and separate activities is justified Notices having been issued by the, National Tribtinal to all the concerned parties, before the NationaJ Tribunal the management and workmen of HMT I, II, III & IV and of HMT Watch Factory were all represented either by their Counsel or by Trade Union leaders as the case may be. By its a,ward dt. April 16, 1969 the National Tribunal held: "(1) The demand of the workmen in the HMT I & II, Bangalore for for payment of bonus at the rate of 20 per cent of their salary for the year 1966-67 is not justified and they are entitled only to four per cent, that is to say the minimum bonus for the year; (2) The workmen of the HMT at Kalamaserry and Pinjore are entitled to the same rate of bonus as is paid to workmen of the, Watch Factory and HMT I & II workmen during the year 1963-64 The factory at Hyderabad not having been started by March 31, 1964, becomes disentitled to the provision of the Bonus Act. Since during the Bonus Act period by virtue of the maintenance of separate accounts no branch or under-taking becomes entitled to the prosperity of the Company the Hyderabad branch is not entitled to any bonus at all under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act; and (3) The demand of the workmen of the HMT I & II at Bangalore and of the HMT IV at Kaiamaserry that bonus should be calculated on the basis of consolidated Profit and Loss Accounts of the separate units and separate activities is justified for the year 1963-64 only and not for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67."

(3.) The award was published under S.17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Centra] Govt. in the Gazette of India dt. May 10, 1969. Aggrieved by the above award the petitioners herein filed the above, writ petition on 10-9-1969 before this Court, but the workmen of HMT IV, Kaiamaserry filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India before tht Supreme Court on ,11-8-1969. After the Special Leave was granted by the Supreme Court, tho appeal was registered as CA. 389(1) of 1970