ALIND SUPERVISORY STAFF ASSOCIATION Vs. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Alind Supervisory Staff Association, Kundara (the "Association"), of which the petitioner is the General Secretary, represents the supervisory personnel of the Aluminium Industries Ltd., Kundara, the 1st respondent (the "Company"). The supervisory personnel consist of various categories, such as Supervisors, Foremen, Asst. Accountants, Asst. Superintendents and Office Assistants. They came to be represented by the Association sometime in 1973.

(2.) Between 1963 and 1968 the Company extended to the supervisory personnel the benefits of certain agreements which it had entered into with the Unions representing the workmen of the Company for payment of bonus linked with productivity It would appear that during those years very few employees categorised as supervisory personnel received wages in excess of Rs. 500/-. It was in 1968 that a number of them began to receive salary far in excess of that limit. The Company realised that the benefits of the agreements with the workmen could not be extended to persons receiving salary in excess of Rs. 500/- without taking into account the limit under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (the "Bonus Act"). The Company for the first time in 1968 refused to grant to the supervisory personnel bonus otherwise than in terms of the Bonus Act. From 1968 onwards bonus was accordingly paid to the supervisory personnel. These facts are borne out by documents, such as Exts. W17 to W24 relating to the years when bonus under agreements with the workmen was paid to the supervisory personnel, and Exts. M27 to M31, M34 and M54 series, relating to the period when such benefits were not extended to the supervisory personnel. It was however only in 1973 that the supervisory personnel, organised under the banner of the Association, took up the claim that they were entitled to the benefits of the relevant agreements with the workmen. It may be stated at this stage that the ' comparative figures concerning bonus paid to the workmen and the supervisory personnel of the Company as well as those of its branches in various other places are shown in Ext. M72. These figures relate to the years 1968-69 to 1974-75. They show that the rate of bonus paid to the supervisory personnel was less than what was paid to the workmen under the various agreements with them, although the supervisory personnel were not far behind the workmen, if the percentage of bonus paid is taken into account, for they appear to have been paid the maximum recognised under the Bonus Act.

(3.) The Association contended in 1973 that it was not sufficient for the Company to pay the supervisory personnel bonus on the basis of the Bonus Act, but that they were entitled to receive bonus in terms of the agreements which the Company had entered into with the workmen. The dispute which arose as a result of that contention was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, under. S.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (the I. D. Act). The Tribunal by Ext. P1 award in I. D. No. 14 of 1974 upheld the Company's contention that the supervisory personnel were not workmen within the meaning of the I. D. Act and rejected the contention of the Association to the contrary. The Tribunal therefore held that the dispute was not capable of being resolved by it.