DALMIA CEMENT COMPANY LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a dispute between the workers represented by the secretary, Dalmia Cement Workers' Union, Dalmiapuram, Tlruchirappalli district, and the management of Dalmia Cement (Bharat, Ltd.), Dalmiapuram, in regard to bonus payable to the former for the year 1955. The claim of the workers was that on the basis of the profits earned by the concern they would be entitled to six months' total earnings as bonus for the year 1955, whereas the contention of the management was that they would be bound to and need pay only one-half of this amount. While this dispute was being attempted to be conciliated and settled, an agreement was arrived at on 6 July 1957 in the presence of the Minister for Labour, Government of Madras. As the entirety of the argument in this petition turned upon the proper construction and legal effect of the agreement, it would be convenient to set out its essential terms even at this stage. The preamble recited:? Whereas the Hon'ble Sri R. Venkataraman (Minister for Labour) proposed that a long-term agreement may be entered Into between the management and the workers to ensure industrial peace, it is hereby agreed by the parties abovenamed as follows (management and the workers):

(2.) THE management implemented the terms of Clauses (1) and (2) in relation to payment of bonus for 1955 and 1956 and of Clauses (2) and (3) in relation to revision of basic salary of the employees. They also paid the bonus for 1957 in accordance with the terms of Clauses (4) of the agreement. Disputes, however, arose between the parties as regards the bonus payable for the year 1958.

(3.) THE claim of the workers was that on the terms of Clauses (4) they were entitled to bonus at the rate of one-fourth of their basic earnings for the year. To this claim the management however raised two contentions: that by reason of certain conduct on the part of the employees, the agreement itself had ceased to have force or had lapsed and that consequently the workers could not claim bonus for the year 1958 under, the agreement and unless the same were payable on the basis of profits if any earned by them during the year applying what is now known as the Pull Bench formula, they need pay no bonus for that year. A subsidiary contention was also raised that on a proper construction of Clauses (4) the management were bound to pay bonus of three months' earnings only if they were bound to pay any bonus under the Pull Bench formula; in other words, the contention urged by them was that Clauses (4) merely determined the quantum of bonus payable provided some bonus was payable under the law and that the clause did not give any right to bonus if on the Pull Bench formula the workers would not be entitled to any bonus.