PAPPU Vs. RAJA TILE AND MATCH WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicability of S.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to a claim for bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, arises for determination in this appeal.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The appellants are two employees of a Tile and Match Factory, claiming bonus for the year 1978-79 at the rate of 17.75 per cent of the wages as declared by the employer. The employer paid the bonus deducting seven days wages, paid for national and festival holidays. These two employees claimed that bonus was payable to them with reference to the wages received by them for these holidays as well; but the employer did not accede to this demand. They therefore, moved the Labour Court under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer questioned the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application; but the same was overruled and the employer was directed to pay the two appellants Rs. 27. 50 towards bonus. This decision was challenged by the employer under Art.226 of the Constitution and a learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of the Labour Court holding that the "dispute" raised by the Management was an "industrial dispute" under S.22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and was therefore not a matter to be decided under S.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved, the employees have filed this appeal.

(3.) The appellants contend that when the applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act (for short, the Act) to the establishment is not disputed and the rate of bonus payable is also fixed and declared, the dispute, if any, thereafter relates only to the computation of the amount of bonus payable and thus an application under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, I.D. Act) was maintainable. On the other hand, the employer contends that the dispute "with respect to the bonus payable under the Act" is deemed to be an industrial dispute under S.22 of the Act, and therefore, the remedy available to the employer should be found in the I.D. Act for settlement of this dispute; and without such settlement, no application under S.33-C(2) which is only in the nature of an execution application, will lie. It is also stressed that even though the payment of wages for the national and festival holidays is a statutory liability, they are not wages earned by the employee, for any work done by them and therefore the liability to pay bonus under the Act for this period is disputed and the merits of this dispute can only be decided by an award or settlement under the I.D. Act. It is submitted that when this decision has to be taken in appropriate proceedings under S.10 of the I.D. Act, it is not proper for the Labour Court under S.33-C (2) or this Court under Art.226 to consider the merits or demerits of the case put forward by the employees.