ANTISEPTIC EMPLOYEES UNIT Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the Antiseptic Employees Unit, represented by the tamilnad Press Workers Union, for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the state Government to refer the dispute relating to all the demands contained in the order of the State Government in G. O. Rt. 1306 dated 7-7-1966 for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, The second respondent is a Journal represented by its partner one Sri Vyasa Rao. The journal is English medical monthly with a circulation of 14,000 copies under the name and style of 'antiseptic'. Besides this, a monthly medical journal known as 'health' is also printed and published by the second respondent with a circulation of 3400 copies monthly. There are 13 clerical staff and about 22 workers employed by the management. A settlement was arrived at between the management of the Press on the one hand and the clerical staff and the workmen on the other on 27-31962, relating to service conditions of the staff, dearness allowance, bonus and gratuity. The agreement provided that the staff and the labourers should be provided with 2 1/2 months bonus a year. The agreement was to be in force for three years. The Madras Press Labour Union on 22-4-1965 made certain claims and the Tamilnad Press Workers Union also came out with certain claims on 7-61965. On 13-8-1965, an agreement was reached by the Management with the madras Press Labour Union for two years regarding the annual increment, dearness allowance, bonus and gratuity. The petitioner Union was not a party to this agreement. Regarding the claims made by the petitioner Union, a failure report was made on 20-1-1966, and the Government declined to make a reference on 7-7-1966. Hence this writ petition is filed for a direction to refer the dispute for arbitration.

(2.) THE impugned order is dated 7-7-1966. It relates to six demands. The petitioner union confines its relief to demands 1 to 3 in this petition and the other demands, therefore, need not be considered in this petition.

(3.) DEMAND (3) refers to payment of bonus. The reason given by the Government for not referring the dispute is stated as follows-" the bonus issue for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 is covered by the settlement dated 27-3-1962 entered into by the management with the Madras Press Labour Union under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. " mr. Dolia, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bonus ordinance was passed on 31-5-1965 and the payment of Bonus Act came into force on 20-5-1985. Section 34 (1) of the Act enacts that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force and or in the terms of any award, agreement, settlement or contract of service made before the 29th May 1965. If the Act is applicable, no agreement, settlement or contract of service made before 29th May 1965 can be relied on but the provisions of the Act will have to be applied. Section 22 of the Act enacts that where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act or with respect to the application of the Act to an establishment in public sector, then such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial disputes Act, section 3 of the Act provides that where an establishment consists of different departments or undertakings or has branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or undertakings or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment for the purpose of computation of bonus under the Act. The proviso states that where for any accounting year a separate balance sheet and profit and loss account are prepared and maintained in respect of any such department or undertaking or branch, then, such department or undertaking or branch shall be treated as a separate establishment for the purpose of computation of bonus under the Act for that year, unless such department or undertaking or branch was immediately before the commencement of that accounting year treated as part of the establishment tor the purpose of computation of bonus. The Government have declined to make a reference on the ground that the bonus issue is covered by the settlement dated 27-3-1962. As pointed out, Section 34 (1) of the Payment of Bonus Act makes it clear that an agreement, settlement or contract of service made before 29th May 1965, will not be effective and the provisions of the Act will govern the issue relating to bonus, if the Act is applicable. The Government have not refused to refer the demand relating to payment of bonus on the ground that the Act is not applicable. The question as to whether the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is applicable or not has to be considered with regard to the demand made by the petitioner Union. The reliance on the settlement deed dated 27-3-1962 is an obvious error. The order of the Government refusing to refer the demand for payment of bonus will have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Government is directed to consider the question whether the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is applicable or not to the demand and decide the question as to whether a reference should be made or not.