9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Profit sharing bonus 2. Reinstatement of 250 old workmen Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Profit Sharing Bonus: The company had an existing profit-sharing bonus scheme with specific profit thresholds and corresponding bonus payments. The workmen sought a revision of this scheme to lower the profit threshold for bonus eligibility and increase the bonus amounts. The company's counterproposal included some adjustments but did not fully meet the workmen's demands. The Industrial Tribunal modified the existing scheme, setting new profit thresholds and bonus rates, and maintained the conditions for full and proportionate bonuses based on attendance. The Tribunal also decided that the revised rates would apply from 1953 onwards, while bonuses for 1951 and 1952 would be paid according to the old scheme. Both parties appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award but added a condition that if the bonus under the revised scheme was less than the bonus calculated according to the Full Bench formula, the latter should apply. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court noted that both parties agreed to accept the Industrial Tribunal's revisions but sought the deletion of the condition added by the Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court ordered that the bonus should be paid according to the revised scheme without the additional condition. The Court also upheld the attendance conditions and the decision to pay bonuses for 1951 and 1952 under the old scheme. 2. Reinstatement of 250 Old Workmen: The dispute over the reinstatement of 250 old workmen stemmed from a sit-down strike in March 1948, which led to their discharge by the company. The company issued notices for reemployment, but only a portion of the workmen responded within the specified time. The Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement without specifying the individuals to be reinstated, which the Labour Appellate Tribunal criticized as vague. The Appellate Tribunal identified 115 workmen whose identities were established, but only 15 had not withdrawn their provident funds and were thus ordered to be reinstated. The Appellate Tribunal denied compensation for the period between discharge and reinstatement due to the delay in seeking redress. The Supreme Court found that the company's discharge of workmen without tribunal permission breached Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, it noted that the workmen did not seek remedy under Section 33-A and that the dispute was referred for adjudication after an unreasonable delay. The Court emphasized the need for timely dispute resolution to avoid industrial dislocation and found the reference to be vague. The Supreme Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal should not have ordered the reinstatement of the 15 workmen, except for four whom the company was willing to reemploy out of human considerations. The appeal of the company was allowed concerning the remaining 11 workmen, and the appeal of the workmen on reinstatement was dismissed. The Court clarified that payments made pursuant to its interim order would not be refundable or adjustable towards future wages. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's revised profit-sharing bonus scheme without the additional condition imposed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. It also dismissed the appeal for reinstatement of 250 old workmen, except for four individuals whom the company agreed to reemploy. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|
