MANAGEMENT OF LIMESTONE QUARRIES BAULIA OF SONE VALLEY PORTLAND CEMENT CO LTD Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this applicatipn under Articles 216 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ/direction quashing the order dated 7.12.1978 as incorporated in Annexure 3 The impugned order has been passed by respondent No 1, the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, under the purported exercise of power under section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act. 1965. The further prayer made in the petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's application under section 36 of the Act in accordance with law.

(2.) The facts are not in controversy, no counter-affidavit having been filed in this case to the petitioner's writ application. The petitioner is an "existing company" within the meaning of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, having been incorporated in the year 1921. It is engaged in extraction of limestone at its quarry at Baulia in the district of Rohtas and in the production of cement in its factory at Japla, within the district of Palamau. The registered office of the petitioner company is at Japla.

(3.) According to the petitioner's case, its financial position is precarious and on account of several other relevant circumstances brought about by factors beyond its control, viz., old dilapidated machinery, low retention price, high rate of coal and power consumption 'excessive labour force, high cost of maintenance, repairs replacement of machineries, manual working of the quarry high ratio of over burden in the quarry, leading to the petitioner running into continuous losses since 1968 till 1977. During this period, the accumulated cash loss of the petitioner being company has run to the tune of Rs. 4,01,10,720/-. This is quite a number of times larger to the paid up value of the company. In such a situation, the petitioner filed a petition under section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for exemption from payment of the statutory bonus for the year 1976. Although in the petition, in paragraph two, the petitioner has averred that the application for exemption under section 36 was made for the years from 1976 to 1980. Shri S. B. Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in course of his argument that the impugned order relates to the year 1976 only. that, however, is of little consequence in so far as the point involved in this case is concerned.