CO OPERATIVE BANKS AND SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES FEDERATION MAHARASHTRA Vs. A K THORAT MEMBER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1-Co-operative Banks and Societies Employees Federation, Maharashtra, is a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 representing the workmen employed at the head office of the 2nd respondent - Jackson Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. On a dispute being raised by the petitioners, a reference was made by the State Government under section 19(1)(d) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, in respect of two demands. The demands included bonus at the rate of 20 % for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The second demand was in respect of the provision of the armed escorts, with which we are not concerned in this petition. The parties produced documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The respondent society also raised certain preliminary objections. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, rejected the claim for bonus, though granted demand No. 2 in relation to the provision of armed escorts. It is this part of the award rejecting payment of bonus which is challenged in this right petition.

(2.) For properly appreciating the controversy raised in this petition, it is worthwhile to note that the petitioner-union have a membership restricted to the Maharashtra Region only. The dispute was raised on behalf of its members. It also appears from the record that the society carries on its activities in the State of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, a contention was raised before the Tribunal that the appropriate Government to make a reference, was not the State Government. Hence the reference itself was not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld this preliminary objection and held that the Reference itself was not maintainable. Miss Buch, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of record in coming to the conclusion that the State Government had no jurisdiction to make the Reference. For properly appreciating the said contention it will be worthwhile if a reference is made to the relevant provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Bonus Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By section 2(5) of the Bonus Act the expression appropriate Government has been defined. Similarly the said expression has also been defined in the Industrial Disputes Act by section 2(a). Some debate was raised before us about the distinction between these two definitions. Then comes section 22 of the Bonus Act which reads as under :

(3.) Second preliminary objection raised by the respondents, which is accepted by the Tribunal was based on the interpretation of section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act. According to the respondents the Payment of Bonus Act will not apply to them since it is an Institution established not for the purpose of profit and, therefore, exempted from the provisions of the Bonus Act in view of section 32(v)(c). Relevant provision reads as under :---