Haryana State vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.—This order shall dispose of six writ petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petitions No. 12543, 18375, 18376, 18377, 18378 and 18379 of 1994 as common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions. However, for dictating judgment, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 18375 of 1994 in which service is complete. The State has challenged the order dated 11.7.1994 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Hisar wherein applications filed u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the respondents-workmen were allowed and they were held entitled to the payment of ex-gratia at the rate paid to other employees for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90. The said amount was to be paid within a period of three months from the date of order and interest was to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order upto the date of actual payment in case the amount was not paid within the specified period.

A perusal of the order of the Labour Court would go on to show that the claim of the workmen was that they were daily paid employees and the management was paying bonus to all its regular employees and the said benefit had been denied to them on the ground that they were not entitled to bonus for initial three years'' service. Accordingly, they claimed that they were emitted to bonus from the date of their appointments and the amount mentioned in the applications be determined in order to be paid to them.

In the written statement filed by the petitioner-management, it was pleaded that the bonus is not being paid to the employees of the Haryana Roadways. However, ex-gratia in lieu of bonus was being paid to the employees and it was stated that ex-gratia was paid for the year 1989-90 to those daily rated employees, who had completed three years of service as on 31.3.1990 as per instructions.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues:--

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the amount of bonus mentioned in the applications on the grounds given in the said petitions?

Whether the application u/s 33C(2) is not maintainable and there is no existing right?

Whether the petition is unreasonable delayed?

Relief.

After examining the evidence brought on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion under issue No. 1 that ex-gratia was being paid to the employees by the management in lieu of bonus and circular relied upon by the management could not override the provisions of the Central Act. It was held that u/s 8 of the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bonus Act") every employee is entitled to bonus provided he had worked in the establishment for not less than 30 days in a year. Accordingly, it was held that instructions dated 31.5.1990 contained in Ex. M-1 could not override the provisions of the Central Act and daily rated employees are entitled to ex-gratia without any restriction of length of service.

On Issue No. 2 regarding maintainability of the applications filed u/s 33C(2) of the Act, it was held that applicants have existing right and accordingly, the said issue was decided against the management.

Similarly, issue No. 3 which was with regard to limitation was also decided against the petitioner-management on the ground that there was no limitation prescribed and the relief Was granted.

Counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11973 of 1993-Haryana State through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar Depot, Hisar v. Presiding Officer and another decided on 18.4.1996 to contend that in similar circumstances, this Court had held that the Bonus Act was not applicable to the employees of the Haryana Roadways in view of section 32(iv) of the said Act.

A perusal of the said judgment would go on to show that the management was made liable to pay ex-gratia with interest at the rate 12% per annum in view of instructions dated 31.5.1990. This Court while placing reliance upon the provisions of section 32(iv) of the Bonus Act held that the said Act will not apply to the employees of the departments of the State Government. Relevant observations read as under:--

"In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Haryana Roadways is run by the Transport Department of the Government. Haryana Roadways is not constituted either under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 or under any State legislature. It is not a statutory Corporation. It is run by the Department of the Government There cannot be any dispute that the Haryana Roadways is an industry. Therefore, the employees employed by an establishment engaged in any industry carried on by or under the authority of the State Government are excluded from the operation of the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 by virtue of section 32(iv) of the said Act. The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in D.P. Kelkar Vs. Ambadas Keshav Bajaj and Others,

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Haryana Roadways will not come within the purview of the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act. Therefore, the employees of the Haryana Roadways which is purely an establishment of the State Government working under the control of the Transport Department are not entitled to get any bonus or ex-gratia by virtue of provisions of payment of Bonus Act, 1965. If an employee is granted bonus or ex-gratia it is only by virtue of the specific order of the State Government either by granting the bonus or ex-gratia and in this case the order granting ex-gratia was made on 31.5.1990 by the State Government. The Governor accorded sanction to make ex-gratia payment in lieu of bonus for the employees working in the Transport Department."

Similarly, it was further held that there was no discrimination between the workers who had completed three years of service and those who have not completed three years of service as it was open to the State Government to make them eligible and they have taken a policy decision to have three years of service as a condition precedent and therefore, it does not amount to discrimination.

Accordingly, keeping in view the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered against the workmen. The writ petitions are liable to be allowed in the same terms. Accordingly, all the six writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court, Hisar are quashed and the applications filed u/s 33C(2) of the Act filed by the workmen are dismissed. A photo copy of this order be placed on the record of each connected case file.