H P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions is being dealt with together since they involve identical question of law as to the maintainability of a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for computation of the minimum bonus secured under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Bonus Act). The details of individual facts in each of these cases do not really matter for the appreciation and adjudication of the points raised except in two cases, namely in C.W.P. 544 of 1993 and 647 of 1998. For the sake of record, the skeletal factual details in C.W.P. No 4/92, C.W.P. No. 544 of 1993 and C.W.P. No. 647 of 1998 alone may be adverted to CMP. No. 4 of 1992:

(2.) This writ petition has been field seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court dated 6.7.1991 made in application No. 1 of 1991 field by the respondents workers under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for computation of the minimum bonus payable under the Bouns Act and the orders passed thereon. whereunder the Labour Court held that the respective applicants are entitled to be paid minimum statutory bonus within the time stipulated therein. The various other applicants before the Labour Court who are arrayed as respondents in these writ petitions are serving in different categories either in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board or the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board . They seem to fall under the categories of T/Mate, Beldars, etc. and though on daily wages basis were found serving for more than a decade. Since their claim for payment of statutorily declared minimum bonus under the Bonus Act has not been countenanced, they filed individual 35 well as joint applications invoking the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. These applications were opposed by the respective petitioner/managements contending that the Labour Court has no jurisdition to try the issue for the reason that it is a matter which has to be agitated by means of raising and industrial dispute and it falls also within the purview of Industrial Tribunal in view of Section 22 of the Bonus Act read with item 5 of the Third Schedule to the Act. It was also contended that daily rated workers as also the workers who have completed 240 days but who are treated as casual workers are not entitled to the benefit of the Bonus Act and consequently, they are neither entitled to any regularisation as such nor for the benefits of the bonus.

(3.) On the above claims and counter-claims the Labour Court formulated the question as to whether the various applicants before the Labour Court are entitled to minimum bonus of 8.33 per cent from the date of their engagement and for that matter are further entitied to having the same computed by means of such applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act or whether the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain arid deal with such applications. The further issue formulated was as to whether the minimum bonus claimed by the workers is not an existing right and the application was not competent to be enter tained. The Labour Court ultimately chose to apply the decisions rendered by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M/s. Anand Oil .Industries v. Labour Court, and that rendered by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in K.T.P. Put. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer2 and held that the applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for claiming the minimum bonus is maintainable and the respective petitioners/management is bound to satisfy the claim of the workers concerned. In some of the orders in appears that an observation has been made to the extent that since the authorised representative of the workers submitted that lie is only claiming minimum bonus from the date of the enforcement of the new provisions of law, namely, from 21.3.1988, hence he does not press for the past benefits. The controversy in this regard as to the concession said to have been made will be considered at a later stage. Aggrieved by the various individual orders passed by the Labour Court in each one of the applications filed by the labourers concerned, these writ petitions have been filed.