DCM LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made to the Industrial Tribunal for an adjudication whether the workmen were entitled to 20% bonus for the accounting year 1994-95, the reference was answered in favour of the workmen with a direction to treat the bonus payable to the eligible workmen for the accounting year of 12 months from 01.07.1994 to 30.06.1995 subject to condition that it will not exceed 20% maximum. While making the award, the Industrial Tribunal found that the treatment of the accounting year for a period of 18 months from 01.07.1994 to 31.12.1995 by the employer and the consequential reduction of percentage of bonus to be declared on the allocable surplus as invalid and accepted the workmen's claim that the employer could treat the accounting year only for a period of 12 months from 01.07.1994 to 30.06.1995. This, according to the employer, was beyond the scope of reference to the Tribunal and hence, the writ petition takes a focus on consideration of how the change of accounting period by the owner of the establishment could be done that may have a bearing to the percentage of bonus that could be declared to the workmen.

(2.) The reference to the Industrial Tribunal was a sequel to a stand-off between the workmen represented through the Union and the industrial unit DCM Engineering Products Limited, Asron (Nawanshahr) within the jurisdiction of the State of Punjab. The industrial establishment is admittedly a unit of M/s DCM Limited (hereinafter called 'the Company'). It is further an admitted fact that DCM Engineering Products Limited (hereinafter called 'the establishment') had a separate balance-sheet and profit and loss account had been prepared and maintained. The workmen were seeking the claim to the profits made by the establishment and not as against the overall allocable surplus of the Company. For the accounting year 1994-95, the workmen had not been paid their bonus up to October 1995, when payments were at last made to each workman by way of an advance of Rs.4,000/- pending finalization of accounts and liable for adjustment when the bonus was declared in future after resolving the disputes.

(3.) It appears that the Company had applied to the Registrar of Companies for extension of time for holding annual general meeting consequent on extension of financial year 1994-95 initially for a period of 3 months from 30.06.1995 to 30.09.1995 and to hold the AGM on or before 31.03.1996 to conduct the business including adoption of Audited Accounts and Directors' report etc. for the financial year 1994-95. The pleadings and evidence are further premised on an ultimate decision and permission for extending the accounting year for the company up to 31.12.1995. By the tenor of the statement given by the workmen by replication, it seems clear that the workmen themselves were not apprised of change of the accounting year before the company's application to the Registrar of Companies. When the establishment ultimately declared the bonus at 13.467% for a period of 18 months and sought for recovery of a portion of the advance already paid, the workmen felt betrayed and contended that the fall in the percentage of bonus had arisen on account of the extension of the financial year 1994- 95 by another 6 months by including within the said period a huge amount of depreciation. The workmen contended that neither the Union nor any of the workmen had been a party to the proceeding for extension of financial year and the alleged permission said to have been given to company. The Union had, therefore, made a demand notice on 15.10.1996 claiming bonus of 30% for the year 1994-95 and in a settlement entered in the presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, on 14.11.1996, it was agreed that the demand of the workmen for extra bonus for the year 1994-95 could be referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The settlement included a Diwali gift of Rs.1,000/- which was not to be treated as advance and that the workmen were resuming the work after 5 days of absence. The reference was made under such a circumstance to determine whether the workmen were entitled to 20% bonus for the year 1994-95 and to determine what benefit should accrue to the workers.