KUNDARA FACTORY WORKERS UNION Vs. LAKSHMI STARCH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workmen seek to quash the arbitration award under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so far as it concerns the D. A. dealt with under Issue 1 and the date of implementation of the award fixed under Issue 13, and the management impugns the same award so far as it relates to the annual bonus formula arrived at under Issue 3, the decision on special annual bonus to existing beneficiaries under Issue 6 and the determination of the question of annual bonus for 1969-70 and 1970-71 under Issue 11. The award on Issue 4: minimum production standard and production bonus scheme, is under attack by both sides. The earlier petition is by the workmen, and the other by the management. In both petitions the arbitration award is marked as Ext. P1.

(2.) Under Issue 1 the existing D. A. of 17 paise per point above 400 points of the cost of living index was raised to 20 paise by the majority-award, while the chairman who formed the minority, as per his award said that it should be raised to 25 paise. It is the case of the workmen that the minority award which is more favourable to them ought to be preferred. It is said that the evidence would support the minority decision. There is no case that the majority has not considered relevant evidence. I do not think that I would be justified in reappreciating the evidence and in deciding the question as to whether the majority properly and correctly assessed the evidence in making the award relating to D. A.

(3.) Issue 3: As per Ext. M 12 long term settlement agreed upon by the workmen and the management, they had evolved in 1968 a bonus formula linked to production. It is the case of the workmen that this formula was agreed upon by them under the expectation that the production would go up on account of certain factors such as installation of higher-capacity-machinery, but that this expectation was belied by actual production. The result was, according to them, they were not getting even the bonus they used to get under the formula of the earlier settlement of 1961, Ext. M8. Unrest appears to have set in and this led to the submission to arbitration under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Overruling the contention of the management that the arbitrators can evolve only a bonus formula in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and that they are not competent to vary the formula agreed upon by both parties as per Ext. M 12 settlement, even if such variation be in respect of only the agreed rates, both the chairman and the other two arbitrators held that they are competent to vary the rates in Ext. M12 settlement. So holding the Chairman revised the rates in one way and the majority, in another manner. This question of competency is raised before me on behalf of the management. It is also contended that the majority-award on Issue 3 is not supported by any reason. Besides, relying on S.31A of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 introduced by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 1976, and on S.34 as now obtained since the substitution of that provision by the same "Amending Act, it is submitted, that the formula as regards bonus evolved by the award is violative of those provisions.