Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Babasaheb Kedar Shetkari Sahakari Sut Girni, a cooperative spinning mill, challenged the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, dated 24-1-2012 in Complaint (ULP) No.102 of 2009. The Industrial Court had declared that the petitioner-employer was engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) by denying the lawful claim for bonus of the employees. The Industrial Court directed the employer to pay the difference of bonus for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 as per the provisions of the amended Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, on the basis of monthly salary or wages of Rs.3,500/- instead of Rs.2,500/-, after deducting the amount of bonus already paid. The employer contended that the dispute regarding bonus was covered by Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act, which requires any dispute to be decided as an industrial dispute under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act), and thus the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act had no jurisdiction. The High Court examined the findings of the Industrial Court, which held that there was no breach of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and that the dispute regarding entitlement to bonus on the basis of the upper limit of Rs.3,500/- was not covered by Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act. The High Court agreed with the Industrial Court's reasoning and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order to pay the difference of bonus. The court held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act as the dispute was not covered by Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Bonus - Entitlement under Amended Section 12 - Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 12, Section 21 - The dispute regarding entitlement of employees to bonus on the basis of the upper limit of monthly salary or wages of Rs.3,500/- as per amended Section 12 is not covered by Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act, which deals with recovery of bonus by application to the appropriate government. The Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute as an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. (Paras 2-4) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Denial of Bonus - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 9 - Denying the lawful claim for bonus of employees constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court correctly directed the employer to pay the difference of bonus for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 as per the amended Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act regarding bonus calculation based on amended Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and whether the dispute was covered by Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act requiring adjudication under the BIR Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing the employer to pay the difference of bonus for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 as per amended Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act on the basis of monthly salary or wages of Rs.3,500/-.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 12 of Payment of Bonus Act
- 1965
- Applicability of Section 21 of Payment of Bonus Act
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
