SITA BHATEJA NURSING HOME TRUST BANGALORE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING not been paid closure compensation, one month's salary and bonus, the 2nd respondent herein filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'act') before respondent 1. It was submitted that closure compensation amounting to Rs. 925/- from 1-6-1973 to 1-8-1978, balance of pay of Rs. 50/- for the month of july 1978, one month's salary in lieu of notice of Rs. 250/-, bonus at 20% from 1-6-1973 to 1-9-1980 amounting to Rs. 4,990/-, leave wages for 30 days from 1973 to 1978 amounting to Rs. 400/-, unpaid salary from 1-9-1980 to 14-9-1980 amounting to Rs. 125/-and double wages for national and festival holidays for the years 1977-78 and 1979-80 amounting to Rs. 313/- had not been paid to the said respondent despite closure of the Dispensary in which he was serving. The claim of respondent 2 was denied by the appellant submitting that he was rendering professional service as a Doctor in the dispensary only for few hours in a day and was being paid nominal service charges; there did not exist relationship of employer and employee between the parties; respondent 2 was stated to be not a workman under the Act; the appellant-Trust was claimed to be not an Industry, therefore, no relief could be granted against it under Section 33-C (2) of the Act and the appellant claimed itself to be a charitable trust, which was not engaged in making any profits, therefore not liable to pay any bonus. The Labour Court vide its order dated 14th January, 1987 allowed the claim of respondent 2 by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,889/- within one month, failing which with interest of 18% per annum and cost of Rs. 50/ -. The amount directed to be paid was on account of minimum bonus of Rs. 2,000/- and unpaid wages of Rs. 889/ -. Not satisfied with the order of the Labour Court, the appellant herein filed a writ petition in this court, which was dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order impugned insofar as it directed the payment of bonus was illegal and contrary to law. It is submitted that the Labour court as also the learned Single Judge committed a mistake of law by applying Section 36 of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'bonus Act') instead of applying Section 32 (v) (c) of the Bonus Act.