S SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 243 in number who are working in various capacities in the 2nd respondent Society which was registered under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and is owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed the present Writ Petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in stopping payment of minimum bonus as contemplated under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act in the shape of ex-gratia, pursuant to the G. O. Ms. No. 366 Finance and Planning Department, dated October 29, 1993, wherein the Government directed the public sector undertakings and Co-operative enterprises owned by it not to pay/sanction bonus/Ex-gratia until further orders as the issue of payment of Bonus/Ex-gratia to the employees of the public sector undertakings is under consideration separately.

(2.) The Government as well as the 2nd respondent filed their counters contesting the claim of the petitioners for payment of bonus. While it is the case of the Government that having issued G. O. No. 366, dated 29/10/1993, in exercise of its powers under Section 36 of the Act also issued U. O. Note No. 4472-A/59/A2/W & M. 1/95, dated 8/02/1995, requesting the Administrative Departments to issue notifications under Section 36 of the Act, without further reference to Finance Department where payment of bonus is not justified in public interest, given the financial position and performance of the company. At the same time, the stand of the Government is that in respect of eligible candidates the departments are requested to refer the file to Finance Department for concurrence duly ensuring that the conditions specified in the U. O. Note are fulfilled. It is also the case of the Government that the 2nd respondent is registered as a Charitable Institution and all the products of the Society are sold to Government Department in carrying out the social welfare programmes to vulnerable sections of the lower income groups and as such the 2nd respondent is expected to sell its products without any profit motive. Stating so the Government tried to justify its action.

(3.) Coming to the 2nd respondent, it started blowing hot and cold. At one breadth it contended that it was not producing or manufacturing any goods nor rendering any service in competition of an establishment in the private sector as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. Hence the question of payment of minimum bonus as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act does not apply to it. It is further contended that it stopped payment of bonus pursuant to the orders issued by the Government in the G. O. referred above. Next, it contended that any dispute with regard to payment of bonus or with respect of application of the Act to an establishment is deemed to be an industrial dispute. As such the petitioners are not entitled to approach this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy.