MURPHY RADIO OF INDIA LTD Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS industrial dispute between the Murphy Radio of India, Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen employed under it, was referred to me for adjudication under Sub -section (5) of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Government of Bombay, Labour and Social Welfare Department, Order No. AJM. 7558, dated 16 May 1958. The demand of the workmen is as follows : -

(2.) IN the statement of claim filed by the secretary of the union it is stated that ever since the commencement of this concern it has been enjoying continued prosperity, that huge profits are made year after year, that dividend at a very high rate is paid to the shareholders; that the wages and dearness allowance of the daily rated and monthly rated staff are very low; that there is a wide gap between the living wage and the actual wage and that therefore bonus equivalent to 50 per cent of the total earnings of the workmen for the year 1956 may be awarded.

(3.) SRI K. S. Mehta for the company argued that the question whether the workmen can get bonus equivalent to more than three months' total earnings is barred by the principle of res judicata because all the arguments for and against a higher bonus which are now being advanced by the parties were advanced in Reference (I.T.) No. 115 of 1957 and were dealt with in the award in that case and that it was held that bonus equivalent to three months' total earnings which came to nearly five months' basic earnings should only be awarded. In my opinion, the principle of res judicata does not apply. It is true that although there is no ceiling for the granting of bonus, certain principles have been formulated by industrial tribunals and by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on these matters. Bonus is not deferred wage. It is an attempt to shorten the gap between the living wage and the actual wage paid to the workmen. It must therefore bear some relation to wages and to the effort that the workmen make in producing the profits. At the same time it is to be borne in mind that bonus should not be so excessive as to create fresh problems in the vicinity. [Vide Parle Products . : 1955 9 F.J.R. 358 But simply because a bonus equivalent to three months' total earnings was granted when the net profits of the company were Rs. 4,53,909, bonus for a succeeding year need not be restricted to the same amount when the net profits of the company have gone up to Rs. 6,62,860. It is not the company's case that by the grant of bonus equivalent to three months' total earnings the gap was filled for all times. It is therefore my opinion that the awarding of bonus equivalent to three months' total earnings for the year 1955 or the observation that merely because the available surplus is large, an unduly large bonus should not be awarded does not act as a bar to the fixation of a higher quantum of bonus for the succeeding year when the profit also is larger than in the previous year.