PANYAM CEMENTS AND MINERALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED WIRE DIVISION BANGALORE Vs. DECCAN WIRE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER-EMPLOYER, in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeks quashing of the award of the second respondent-Industrial tribunal dated 16-8-1994 at Annexure-A, insofar as it holds strike by the members of the first respondent Employees' Association-Workmen of the petitioner establishment-from 12-8-1982 to 31-8-1982, as justified, and insofar as it holds the workmen entitled to wages for the said period.

(2.) THE erstwhile Deccan Wires Limited (Wire Division) had been manufacturing sophisticated high carbon steel wires, going into production in the year 1976. It suffered loss, and it was amalgamated with the petitioner M/s. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Limited with effect from 31-5-1980. After amalgamation, the erstwhile Deccan Wires at Bangalore is referred to as the Wire Division. M/s. Panyam Cements had units in Karnool and Bellary Districts also. While the management paid bonus at 20% in 1979-80 and 16% in 1980-81 to the workmen of the said other units, the said bonus was not paid to the workmen of the Wire division at Bangalore. In this regard, a dispute was raised by the workmen of the Wire Division. Management contended that, as per Section 16 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Wire Division having gone into production since 1976, bonus was payable only from the 6th accounting year - in the following accounting year in which the establishment sold the goods produced, and, as such, Wire Division had a bonus holiday for the period of 5 years, and, that the management of the wire Division was not liable to pay bonus to the workmen for the year 1979-80 or 1980-81. It contended that the Wire Division had been sustaining huge losses, and that, as on December 1979, the accumulated losses totalled over Rs. 6 crores. Even then, management offered bonus at 8. 33% for the year 1980-81. Workmen of the Wire Division, however, contended that, just as workmen of other units were being paid, they were also entitled to 20% of bonus for the accounting year 1979-80 and 16% bonus for the accounting year 1980-81. In the face of these rival contentions, the matter was admitted to conciliation. Conciliation meetings were held on 20-7-1982, 28-7-1982 and 2-8-1982. The workmen had, however, told the management that if the management did not concede to the said demand for bonus, they would go on strike. Workmen accordingly went on strike from 12-8-1982 to 31-8-1982. It was then that the state Government referred the dispute under Section 10 (l) (d) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short) to the Industrial Tribunal, bangalore. The first point of reference was - whether the workmen of the Wire Division were entitled to 20 per cent bonus for the accounting year 1979-80 and 16 per cent bonus for the accounting year 1980-81. The second point of reference was - whether the workmen were justified in going on strike from 12-8-1982 to 31-8-1982. By the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal answered the first point in the negative, thereby holding that the workmen were not entitled to the bonus asked for. The tribunal, however, held the strike as justified, and directed payment of wages for the said period. It is this part of the award with regard to justification of the strike and payment of wages during the strike period, that is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) TO conclude that the strike was justified, the Industrial Tribunal has observed that the management also contributed in bringing on record a particular annual report. The said annual report at Exhibit W-2 relates to the period after amalgamation. As the Tribunal itself notices in the course of the award, the said report also showed what was the loss from the Wire Division. The Tribunal also observed that, when the balance sheet specifically pointed out the losses suffered from the Wire division, it cannot be said that the workmen of the Wire Division contributed for the progress of the concern so as to claim bonus beyond 8. 33 per cent on the basis of the profits earned by the workers of the other branches of the establishment. The Wire Division had been treated as a separate unit for the purpose of Section 16 of the Payment of Bonus Act also. In these circumstances, there was no scope for the workmen of the wire Division to get confused with regard to their claim for bonus. Production of a particular annual report, therefore, could not be held against the management when it clearly showed what was the loss suffered in the Wire Division also.