GODREJ SOAPS LIMITED Vs. BABAN BABURAO NEMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the order dated 6/02/1999 passed by the Labour Court, mumbai granting certain claims to the respondent workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The first Respondent workman has filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act before the Labour Court claiming ad hoc lump sum of Rs. 3,500/- ex gratia payment of Rs. 6,000/- for the period 1994-95 in lieu of bonus Rs. 4000/- as T. C. and a service award given to workmen on completion of 25 years and 15 years. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, it was submitted that the workmen had ceased to be in employment pursuant to a voluntary retirement scheme which the petitioner had floated pursuant to an agreement with the recognised union. According to the Petitioner Company, the respondent workmen had all accepted the voluntary retirement scheme and, therefore, nothing was due and payable to them as claimed in the application. Moreover, it was submitted that since the salary of all the workmen exceeded Rs. 3,500/- per month, they were not covered by the Payment of Bonus Act and hence not eligible for payment of bonus. The labour Court awarded the workmen Rs. 6,000/- each as ex gratia payment on the basis of the notice dated 29/09/1995 issued by the petitioner for payment of ex gratia for the year ending 31/03/1995. While rejecting the other claims, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the workmen in respect of the service award and directed that each of the workmen be paid Rs. 1000/- in lieu of the wrist watch.

(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notice for payment of ex gratia was applicable to only those employees who were on the rolls of the company on the date of disbursement of the bonus/ex gratia i. e. for daily rated workmen and monthly rated peons and Watchmen on 16/10/1995 and for the other staff and employees as also officers and Managers on 17/10/1995. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Respondent workmen who had accepted the voluntary retirement scheme in may, 1995 were not eligible for payment of ex gratia. It was further contended that only two categories of ex-employees were to be paid this amount as a special case and without any precedent, namely, those who were superannuated and legal heirs of deceased workmen. The learned counsel submits that the respondent workmen did not fit in any of these categories and, therefore, were not entitled to the ex gratia payment. As regards the service award, reliance is placed on an agreement of 21/11/1991. Under Clause 12 of that agreement, the Company agreed to voluntarily pay service awards to those employees who complete 15 years of service on or after 1/01/1991. According to the Learned counsel, these workmen having completed 15 years prior to 1/01/1991 were not entitled to any service award under the said notice.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent workmen vehemently urged that ex gratia, payment was payable to workmen who were superannuated to all ex-employees and especially those who were superannuated. He submits that superannuation stands on a same footing as voluntary retirement and, therefore, the workmen are entitled to these ex gratia payment. As regards, service award also he submits that once a person completes 15 years of service on or after 1/01/1991, then he is entitled to service award of Rs. 1,000/ -. He submits that the Labour Court has correctly interpreted the clauses of the settlement as well as the notice and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.