LAWS(PAT)-1963-5-8

HOWRAH-AMTA LIGHT RAILWAY Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

Decided On May 03, 1963
HOWRAH-AMTA LIGHT RAILWAY Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Howrah-Amta Light Railway Company, Ltd., and the Howrah-Sheakhala Light Railway Company, Ltd., belonging to the group of Martin's Light Railways have obtained a rule from this Court against the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad, respondent 1, Light Railways Employees' Union, respondent 2, and Martin Light Railways Mazdoor Union, respondent 3, to show cause why the award dated 22 March 1960 made by respondent 1 in Reference Case No. 66 of 1959 be not set aside by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THE petitioner's workmen represented by the two unions, respondents 2 and 3, have been separately impleaded as respondent 4 in the application. Cause has been shown by the two unions. Sri C. B. Ghosh represented respondent 2 and Sri Ras Behari Singh appeared for respondent 3.

(2.) THE petitioners had been paying since the year 1949 (a special bonus commonly and popularly known as puja bonus in West Bengal to the workmen of their line staff with whom we are concerned in this case, every year on the occasion of the well-known and well-celebrated puja festival, According to the petitioner's case, they had been making these payments as ex gratia and out of bounty, and, in doing so, after the close of the financial year on 31 March, each year, they had been taking into account the trading results of the previous completed financial year and the prospects of the then current year. Neither of the petitioners had sustained any loss in any of the years in which such ex gratia payments were made and the apparent loss in case of petitioner 2 in the year 1949-50 was explained by the fact that certain compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000 recoverable by the said company from East India Railway in respect of the said year was not received during that year and was received and included in year 1950-51. THE petitioner's case further is that under the terms of employment their line staff had never been entitled to any holiday during the pujas. Until the year 1953 the petitioners used to make the said ex gratia payments after the pujas and only to those members of the line staff who had not absented themselves from the work during the puja. From the year 1954 onwards at the request of the petitioner's line staff made through respondent 2, the petitioners have been making the said ex gratia payments before the pujas in order to assist the workmen to make their puja purchases bat this has been done expressly on the condition that the amount of such payment would be refundable by any member of the line staff who absented himself from work during the pujas. THE petitioners were motivated at different times in addition to bounty, by different factors and circumstances prevailing in each year when the payments were made. Such payments never were or became a term of the employment of the petitioners' line staff. On or about 13 September 1958, respondent 2 requested the petitioners to make an ex gratia payment equivalent to three months' basic salary fifteen days before the pujaa to the workmen of the line staff. But by reason of the petitioners' difficult financial position in the said year, they declined to make an ex gratia payment of such a large amount but sanctioned the ex gratia payment equivalent to one-and-one-third months' basic salary as in the immediately preceding years. THEy, however, made it clear that, unless their (petitioners) financial position improved it would not be possible for them to make any similar payment in future. THE workmen accepted the payment. In June 1959, various demands were made on behalf of their workmen through respondent 2 including, inter alia, demands for bonus for 1958-59. THE petitioners contended that their profits for the years in question did not justify payment of any bonus at all. On or about 17 September 1959 the petitioners declared that they would make an ex gratia payment equivalent to one month's basic salary to the line staff and that they would also make an advance to such staff of amounts equivalent to their basic salary for ten days to be recovered back in three instalments. On 21 September 1959, an agreement was reached between the petitioners and respondent 2 which was incorporated in a memorandum of settlement arrived at in a conciliation proceeding in the presence of the conciliation officer on 24 September 1959, according to which the petitioners were to advance an amount equivalent to one month and ten days' basic salary as loan to their line staff pending adjudication of the demand made by respondent 2.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate who has appeared in support of the rule has urged four points: (i) The tribunal has committed an error of law in deciding that the scope of reference includes a determination as to whether the workmen are entitled to puja bonus either as an implied term of service or as a customary bonus whereas the wordings of dispute mentionad in the order of reference, as amended by the corrigenda, left no room for doubt that the tribunal was required to make an award as to the quantum of bonus only in respect of the financial years 1957-58 and 1958-59 on the basis of profit. (ii) The decision of the tribunal that the workmen are entitled to puja bonus as an implied condition of service is erroneous in law on the face of the record. (iii) The quantum of bonus determined by the tribunal is illegal and arbitrary as it is based upon no valid ground. (iv) The award is vague and does not specify as to which of the workmen of the petitioner-companies were entitled to receive the bonus.