SINDHU-HOCHTIEF INDIA PRIVATE LTD Vs. PRATAP DIALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of an order made by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi dated 26 August, 1964, under Sub-section (3) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute arising out of the demands made by the workmen of the petitioner Sindhu Hochtief (India) (Private), Ltd., through their union - Kandla Port and Dock Mazdoor Sangh, Gandhidham, was referred to the sole arbitration of Sri Pratap Dialdas of Bombay. It appears that the workers' demand which was referred to the arbitration of Sri Pratap Dialdas was in respect of bonus for the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 and till the date of the closing down of the establishment of the petitioner. The arbitrator made and published his award on 2 November, 1964. While giving his award in respect of the demand for bonus for the said years made by the workers, the learned arbitrator also gave directions as regards the manner in which the distribution of bonus awarded was to be effected and amongst the several directions that were given by the arbitrator, one related to the manner in which all undisbursed bonus accumulations remaining unpaid should be disposed of by the petitioners. This particular direction is to be found in Clause (l) of Para, 14 of the award and it runs as follows :

(2.) Clause (g) referred to in Clause (l) provided that the company shall commence payment to bonus after thirty days of the publication of this award and to continue to make such disbursement for a period of one year from that date. In other words, reading Cls. (g) and (l) together the learned arbitrator gave directions that the company should made disbursements in the matter of bonus awarded for a period of one year from the date of the publication of this award and thereafter whatever undisbursed bonus accumulation might remain as unpaid, the direction in Clause (l) stated that the company shall hand over the said undisbursed bonus accumulations to the trust, viz, "Gandhidham Workmen's Welfare Trust." It is this last direction, which was given by the arbitrator in Clause (l) of Para. 14 of his award that is being challenged by the petitioners as being illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and by the petition the petitioners are seeking to quash or set aside the aforesaid direction contained in Clause (l) of Para. 14 as well as farther directions which are given to the trustees of that trust in Cls. (m) and (n) of Para. 14 of the award.

(3.) The sole ground on which these directions are challenged as being beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is that the subject matter as to what should happen to undisbursed bonus or unpaid bonus that might remain over after the company makes disbursement of the bonus as directed by the award did not fall within the definition of an "industrial dispute" under S. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with S. 10A under which only such a dispute could be referred to arbitration, There is no doubt that the present reference to the learned arbitrator was under S. 10A of the Industrial disputes Act, which provides for voluntary reference of an industrial dispute to arbitration. It is obvious that what could be referred to arbitration under S. 10A must be an industrial dispute as defined by S. 2(k) of the Act. Section 2(k) defines "industrial dispute" as follows :