MAJOR D ARANHA Vs. UNIVERSAL RADIATORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant applied under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to compute the bonus amount due to him in the sum of Rs. 2,100. He claimed that when his services were terminated on March 31, 1966, his bonus was not settled. According to him, the bonus for the year (965-1966 had not been even declared by the management. The respondent-management resisted the claim on the ground inter alia that on April 2, 1966, the appellant was paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 3,000 towards all the benefits due to him, inclusive of bonus for 1965-1966. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, posed for his determination the question, whether the petitioner (appellant herein) was entitled to bonus for 1965-1966, as claimed by him. He answered the question in the affirmative. Ramaprasada Rao, J. , allowed the management's petition for certiorari. He was of the view that the dispute in the instant case was such as would not fall within the scope of Section 33c (2) of the Act and that the appellant's remedy was to apply under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The aggrieved- erstwhile employee is before us on appeal.

(2.) IN our opinion, the learned Judge was right. Section 33c (2) is a machinary section Even so, it has been construed by Courts to have a Major D. Aranha vs. Universal Radiators and Ors. (09. 04. 1974 -MADHC) Page 2 of 3 jor D. Aranha vs. Universal Radiators and Ors. (09. 04. 1974 -MADHC) Page 2 of 3 wide scope, the computation embracing not merely simple arithmetical calculation. Whatever claim may or may not be attracted within the scope of Section 33c (2), an industrial dispute as defined in the Act, as we think, will not clearly be within the purview of that provision. This is because of the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides for a specific forum and procedure for adjudicating industrial disputes. Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, deems any dispute that arose between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under the Act to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being so, such a dispute will have to be adjudicated in the regular way and not resolved by an application under Section 33c (2 ). Our attention was invited to Section 39 of the Payment of Bonus Act, but that does not assist us or compel us to take a different view. Our view is not that Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act overrides Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. But when Section 22 of the former Act deems a dispute with respect to bonus payable under the Act to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the forum and the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act will be the only means by which the dispute can find a solution and it is not through Section 33c (2 ).

(3.) IT is contended for the appellant, supported by Allahabad Labour Supply Agency v. First Labour Court, Nagpur [1970] 39 F. J. R. 409, that an individual dispute will be outside the scope of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act. With respect, we are not inclined to share this view, for apart from the fact that a plural includes a singular, after the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to attract individual disputes too within the scope of an industrial dispute, it does not appear to us to be reasonable that Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act will be inapplicable to individual disputes.