DANIEL DORAIRAJ NO 254 M O C B AND C MILLS GENERAL Vs. MANAGEMENT OF THE BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal or the only question involved in this appeal against the judgment of Veeraswami, J. (See - Ed.) is whether the claim to good attendance bonus under the terms of an arbitration award which has been made a decree of Court, can be agitated Under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, before the Labour Court, or whether the remedy of the workman in that regard will be to execute the decree.

(2.) TOWARDS the end of the year 1955 an industrial dispute arose between the workers and the management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. Ultimately there was an agreement between the parties to refer the matter to the arbitration of Sri Ramaswami Gounder who was then presiding over the Industrial Tribunal, at madras. He passed an award on 19-1-1957, and a decree in terms thereof was passed on the Original Side of this Court on 12th April 1957. One of the terms of the arbitration award relates to what is called perfect attendance bonus, the worker being entitled to 50 np. per month in add to his salary, in case of perfect attendance for the first six months in a calendar year and 85 np. per month during the next half year if perfect attendance is shown not merely during the period, but also during the preceding six months. If the latter condition were not satisfied he would be entitled to bonus only at 50 np. per month for perfect attendance. In the computation of such bonus absence for one day would be condoned if it was occasioned by medical leave or leave on the occasion of the death or other connected ceremonies of a relative.

(3.) ACCORDING to the management in October 1958 at the, request of the workers, a holiday was granted on condition of the latter agreeing to work on some others holiday. When however the latter clay came the appellant refused to attend. Excluding that day, there were no doubt 25 working days in the month during which the appellant attended. The management, declined to pay him the 50 np. bonus for that month as the workman had not turned up for work on the compensatory working day. This claim was sought to be enforced by the worker in an application Under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the labour Court, Madras. The jurisdiction of that court to decide the claim was contested by the management on the ground that the claim arising as it did under an arbitration award which had subsequently been made a decree of court, could not be said to arise under a settlement or award or under the provisions of Ch. VA of the Industrial Disputes Act and that therefore, could not properly come within the terms of the section. The underlying assumption on which that objection resists is that Section 33-C (2) would cover only claims of the kind specified in section 33-C (1) namely, those arising out of an industrial award or settlement or under the provisions of Ch. V-A of the Act. This objection was sustained by the labour Court which rejected the appellant's claim. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Labour Court failed before veeraswami J. The learned Judge held that Sub-section 2 of Section 33-C should be read conformably to Sub-section 1 and that neither of them could refer to claims of the nature specified as an arbitration award. Hence the present appeal.