9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of judgment by Single Judge and Division Bench regarding payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 to employees of the appellant. Analysis: The appellant, a non-profit establishment owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, sought exemption from the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 for its factory. The Commissioner of Labour initially held that the Act did not apply to the factory. However, subsequent decisions by the Nutrition Council led to the withdrawal of ex-gratia payments to employees, which resulted in a writ petition by 243 employees. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, rejecting the appellant's claims of exemption under the Act. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that Sections 20, 22, and 32(v)(c) of the Act precluded the writ petition from being entertained, as the dispute was an industrial one falling under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the respondents contended that the High Court rightly entertained the petition based on established facts. The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing the importance of utilizing statutory remedies rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing various legal precedents, the Court highlighted the need for disputes between employers and employees to be resolved through forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act for a speedy and effective resolution. It was noted that the High Court should refrain from intervening under Article 226 when specific statutory remedies are available, except in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the Court found that both the Single Judge and Division Bench failed to consider the basic issues and should have directed the parties to avail the statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, due to the prolonged duration of the case and the need for adjudication by the appropriate Tribunal, the Court directed the appropriate Government to refer specific questions for adjudication, including the issue of whether the appellant was liable to pay bonus to its employees under the Act. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of directing the reference to the Tribunal, emphasizing that the parties should jointly approach the appropriate Government with a copy of the judgment. The Tribunal was instructed to make efforts to dispose of the reference promptly within four months of receiving it from the State Government. No costs were awarded in the appeal.
|
