DISTT. TRANSPORT MANAGER (ADMN.), ORISSA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite party No. 2 was a conductor under the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. His service came to be terminated by office order dated 31.1.1990. A grievance was made before the Industrial Tribunal by filing a petition under Sec. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Tribunal allowed the application and directed reinstatement of the workman with "full back wages". In obedience to the award, the workman was reinstated in service and was paid his wages from Feb., 1980 to March, 1981. He was, however, not paid the statutory bonus which for the year 1980-81 was a sum of Rs. 448.15. On this not being done, an application was filed under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Act and the Labour Court has taken a view that the workman was entitled to be paid his bonus also as the same forms a part of the wages. Being aggrieved at this, the Corporation has filed this petition not so much to deny the petitioner the sum of Rs. 448.15 but to get an adjudication from this Court as to whether wages would include bonus.

(2.) Shri Rath appearing for the Corporation has drawn our attention to the definition of "wages" as given in Sec. 2(rr) of the Act which has specifically stated that this word would not include "any bonus". The expression being "any bonus", we are of the view that the statutory minimum bonus is also excluded from the definition of the word "wages".

(3.) The petition is, therefore, disposed of by stating that the workman was not entitled to the statutory bonus by force of the award of the Industrial Tribunal which had directed reinstatement with full back wages. But then, as the workman was reinstated, we are of the view that on the facts of this case the statutory minimum bonus payable to him for the period during which he was out of job may not be denied to him. The Corporation shall, therefore, pay the sum of Rs. 448.15 to the workman-opposite party No. 2 as his claim towards statutory bonus, not because of the award of the Tribunal, which has directed reinstatement with full back wages, but because he was entitled to the same otherwise.