P RAJESWAR RAO Vs. ADDITIONAL DT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order in CM. A. 49/1979. The averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition may be briefly stated:

(2.) The petitioner is having a factory at Mancherial for the manufacture of stoneware glazed pipes which is made of white clay. The petitioner has been granted mining lease by the State Government for extraction of white clay and this white clay is used in the manufacture of stoneware glazed pipes. The factory works practically throughout the year in so far as the extrartion of white clay is concerned it can be done only during the rainv season. The Mine work will be done for about 70 to 80 days in a year. The emplovees in the mines work, work for 70 to 80 days in a year and in the year 1976-77 60 labourers worked for 74 days. The petitioner firm is maintaining single balance sheet and profit and loss statement both for the factory as well as" for the mines including the sales division.The firm declared a bonus for the said year at the rate of 8.33% on the basis of allocate surplus and paid bonus accordingly to all the labourers. As tne workers in the mines worked for 74 days only and as the other worl^rs worked for about 280 days, the workers in the mines are paid 8 l/3 % of the wages earned by them during the work period. The second respondent i.e., the Labour Enforcement officer,"pointed out that a minimum of Rs. 100/- to each of the employee as bonus should be paid and thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner stating that the workers are entitled to 8 1/3 % of the wages only and the Deputy Commissioner held that the workers are entitled to the proportionate payment but not the minimum of Rs. 100/-. On appeal the Additional District Judge set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and directed the payment ot minimum of Rs. 100/- bonus. It is held that as the workers did not work on all the working days they are entitled to 8 1/3 % of the wages only and the question of payment of minimum bonus does not arise.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.. Srinivasa Murthy, contended that on the proper interpretation of Sec. 10 and Sec. 13 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the payment of bonus at 81/3% of the wages is justified in view of the fact that the workers did not work throughout all the working days. The learned standing Counsel for the Central Government, Sri R Sriramulu, contended that whatever may be the manner of accounting that has been adopted by the petitioner firm the workers were employed for 75 days only and therefore the question of their not attending the work for any working day does not arise and therefore the minimum bonus as contemplated by Section 10 is justified. At the out set it is necessary to get at the approach made by the primary authority and the appellate authority.