WORKMEN OF RAMAJAYAM TRANSPORTS Vs. MANAGEMENT RAMAJAYAM TRANSPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workmen are the petitioners before me. The first respondent-management is a transport concern started some time in 1938 and has made substantial progress. There are about 75 permanent workmen in the respondent-concern. They raised an industrial dispute regarding bonus for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The demand was that they were entitled to what is called customary or traditional bonus paid at the time of Deepavali festival every year equivalent to three months' total wages for each of the two years concerned They also stated that right from the inception of the concern they were getting bonus, initially at the rate of one month's salary, which was increased to two months' salary, then in 1961-62 it was paid at 20 per cent and in 1962-63 at 22 per cent of the total wages. From the financial year 1963 64, on the basis of an agreement entered into under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was increased to 25 per cent. Then, when a further demand was made in 1956-67 again, a settlement was entered into under Section 12 (3) of the Act agreeing to pay three months' salary as bonus. This was operative till 1970. But, only when the demand was made for bonus for the years in question, viz. , 1971-72 and 1972-73, dispute arose, which was referred for adjudication before the Tribunal. The workmen based their claim on the ground that they were entitled to customary bonus for in the alternative based on implied condition of service. The contention of the management was that no customary bonus was ever paid, nor again was it correct to state that the workmen would be entitled to bonus based on the implied condition of service. On the contrary, even in the agreement entered into as late as 1967, it was clearly provided that the terms of bonus in the previous settlements would be revisable, if special circumstances intervene whereby the financial status or the other conditions of the management would be affected. They filed statements of profit and loss accounts to show that it was not possible to comply with the demand of the workmen. There, upon, the issue relating to the payment of bonus was referred for adjudication under Section 10 (2) of the Act, which issue read as follows: To fix the quantum of bonus for 1971-1972 and 1972-1973. Under I. D. No. 58 of 1973, this was taken up for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras Before the Tribunal the two questions arose for determination. One was to put it broadly (a) whether the workmen would be entitled to any kind of bonus outside the pale of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and (b) if so, whether they were entitled to the customary bonus or bonus based on implied condition of service. The second question was about the actual quantum of bonus.

(2.) THE Tribunal was of the view that under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, having regard to the language of Section 1, Clause (4) the workmen would not be entitled to any bonus outside the Act. Since there was no interdict on such bonus, it also came to the conclusion having regard to the documentary evidence let in, that the claim of the union, viz. , for 25 per cent of the earnings as customary or traditional bonus and also that it was an implied condition of service, could not be true. This is how the present writ petition arises before me.

(3.) MR. S. Ramaswami, learned Counsel, in attacking this award submits as under: (1) The view of the Tribunal that there cannot be any payment of bonus after the passing of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1955. in the sense 'out side the Act' cannot be supported in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mumbai K mear Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Ors. 1976--II L. L. J. 186. (2) The Tribunal has confused itself between two kinds of bonus, viz. , (i) the customary bonus and (ii) bonus based upon implied condition of service. The fact that varying quantum were paid during all these years would itself clearly show that it was an implied condition of service. It is also customary bonus, because it was linked at all times to the Deepavali festival. In fact, the agreement entered into would clearly spell out the payment during Deepavali. Without under standing the scope of either, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the union. Hence, the matter must be remanded for a fresh adjudication on this issue, since as per the decision of the Supreme Court the claims relating the customary bonus or bonus based on implied condition of service are tenable even after the passing of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.