AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Mahendra Behari Lal for the Respondents.
This petition is directed against an order dated 5.7.1999 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking the Collector to recover the amount of incentive/production bonus to the tune of Rs. 63,178/-as arrears of land revenue against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper etc. where the employees were in receipt of production bonus/production incentive under an agreement between the parties entered in 1983 and 1998 . It appears that the workers in the Mill were laid off from 4.1.1998 and on 7.2.1998 a lock out was declared, however, an agreement was reached between the parties on 20.4.1998, which was also registered under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) where after work started in the Mills from May, 1998 but while disbursing salary for March and April, 1999 the production/incentive bonus was not paid and the workmen through their union approached the Respondent No. 1 who issued a show cause notice dated 21.5.1999 under the Act. Again it was not paid for the month of May, 1999 and therefore, another notice dated 22.6.1999 under the Act was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner replied to both the notices where after the present impugned order has been passed.
It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that any amount payable as incentive bonus is not "wage" within the meaning of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and therefore, the application was not maintainable. It is also urged that since there was a dispute with regard to payment of bonus which was not a condition of service and therefore, did not violate Section 4-I of the I.D. Act, the order is vitiated. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, and a Single Judge decision of this Court rendered in the case of Hari Fertilizers v. IV Addl. District Judge and Ors. 1995 (70) FLR 866.
A perusal of the Act shows that the term "wages" would have the same meaning as assigned to it under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The definition of "wages" under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is inclusive of all allowances or otherwise additional remuneration payable in express or implied conditions of service, thus the contention that it is not recoverable under the Act is misplaced. As observed above and so found by the Authority under the Act that the workers were receiving the production/incentive bonus since more than 15 years when it was stopped despite the fact that in the agreement of 1998 the Petitioners had undertook to keep on paying it. On the present facts, it would partake the nature of conditions of service as prescribed u/s 4-I of the I.D. Act. The Authority has given reasons and in fact has complied with the requirements placed by the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries (Supra). So far as the Hari Fertilizer''s case is concerned, it was a case under Payment of Bonus Act and therefore, is irrelevant for the present purposes.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
However, the genuine payment of the workers since has been held up due to interim order passed by this Court at the behest of the Petitioner, the amount impugned would carry an interest of six percent per annum from the date of the interim order i.e. July, 1999 till the date it is paid or recovered.