9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst deal with the question of profit sharing bonus. It appears that the company had a profit sharing bonus scheme in force on the following lines. It provided that after making certain deductions, if the remaining profit was between ₹ 1,50,000 and ₹ 1,99,999, the workmen would be entitled to quarter of a month's average basic pay as bonus, When the remaining profit was between ₹ 2-00 lakhs and ₹ 2,49,999, the bonus went up to half of a month's average basic pay. When the remaining profit was between ₹ 2,50,000 and ₹ 2,99,999, the bonus was to be three quarters of a month's average basic pay and when the remaining profit was ₹ 3 lacs or more the bonus was to equal one month's basic pay. No bonus was to be paid if the profit was less than ₹ 1,50,000. There were provisions that the full bonus would be paid to a workmen who had attended 275 days in a year (inclusive of holidays and leave with pay) while those with less attendance were to be paid proportionately with the condition that if the attendance of any workman was less than 100 days he would be entitled to no bonus. The workmen wanted this scheme to be revised and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this revision. The company contended that no greater revision than what it had agreed to should have been ordered. In the workmen's appeal it was contended that the scheme put forward on their behalf should have been accepted. They further contended that the condition of minimum attendance for 100 days should not have been laid down and that the bonus for the years 1951 and 1952 should have been awarded at the revised rates. The Appellate Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal in this respect and dismissed the appeals with one modification,, namely, it added that if in any year it was found that the bonus worked out according to the award of the Industrial Tribunal was less than profit bonus, calculated according to the Full Bench formula evolved in the Mill- Owners' Association, Bombay v. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay (1), the workmen would be entitled to bonus under the formula; otherwise they would get bonus under the scheme as modified by the Industrial Tribunal., In the appeals before us, the company has attacked the revision ordered by the Industrial Tribunal, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, as also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turally refused to meet the demands when they were under investigation by the tribunal. Consequently, the workmen who had come to work on March 23,1948, started a sit-down strike after they had entered the company's premises. This strike continued from March 23 to 27, and it was on March 27 that the workmen were ejected from the premises by the police according to the case of the company or were induced to leave the premises by the police according to the case of the workmen. Anyhow, after the workmen left the premises on 27th, the company gave notice on that day that the Works would be 'closed indefinitely. Another notice was given by the company on April 6, 1948, in which it was notified that all those who had resorted to illegal strike from March 23, 1948, would be deemed to have been discharged from that date. Thereafter no work was done till May 15, 1948. On that date the company gave a notice that if sufficient suitable men applied for employment on or before May 19, the works would be opened on a limited scale from May 20. It seems, however, that nothing came out of this notice. Eventually on July 5, the company gave another notice to the effect that the works would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the workmen to be reinstated might be established to give a general notice on its notice-board notifying the strikers to come and join their duties on a fixed date and to reinstate whichever striker applied within the time allowed. This award of the Industrial Tribunal has been rightly criticised by the Appellate Tribunal, which has charactrized this reinstatement as vague and highly objectionable . The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that no award could be so loosely or vaguely made . It further went on to consider whether identity could in any manner be fixed. In this connection it relied on the remarks made by the company (which had, however, objected to the production of the list at that late stage) on this list under orders of the Indust- rial Tribunal. From these remarks the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the identity of 115 workmen had been established. It found that 100 out of them had withdrawn their provident fund. It, therefore, held that so far as these 100 were concerned, they accepted the order of discharge because of the with. drawal of the provident fund and no further relief could be granted to them. As for the remaining fifteen workmen, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no doubt that strictly speaking the order of the company discharging its workmen on April 6, 1948, when a dispute was admittedly pending was a breach of s. 33; (see Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Employees of the Bank,( [1953] S.C.R. 680.). The remedy for such a, breach is provided in s. 33-A and it can be availed of by an individual workman. If therefore it was felt by the workmen who were discharged on April 6, 1948, that there was breach of s. 33 by the company, they should have applied individually or collectively to the tribunal under s. 33-A. None of them did this. It is true that some kind of letter was written to the Assistant Labour Commissioner in November, 1949, but that was also very late and nothing seems to have happened thereafter for almost another three years, till the first reference was made on October 7, 1952. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal; even so it is only reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale, as in this case. The indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of opinion that the Appellate Tribunal should not have ordered the reinstatement of even the fifteen workmen in the circumstances as their case was exactly the same as the case of the hundred workmen, except in the matter of the withdrawal of the provident fund. After the application for special leave was allowed this Court made an order on September 26, 1955, that seven days' wages every month should be paid by the company to the fifteen workmen who had been ordered to be reinstated. Learned counsel for the company informs us that of these fifteen, only seven have been turning up to receive this payment while eight men never turned up. This shows that these eight are not interested in the reinstatement. Of the remaining seven, two, according to the learned counsel for the company, have obtained other jobs while one is said to be a member of Parliament. The company was prepared to reinstate, out of human considerations, the other four, though, it contends that legally and rightly so-it is not bound to reinstate any one of these fifteen workmen. These four workmen whom the company is prepared to take back are Nitai Manji, Satya Charan Das, Mustafa Khan and Akil-ud-Din. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
