LAWS(BOM)-1971-3-24

V A NAIR Vs. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO

Decided On March 31, 1971
V.A.NAIR Appellant
V/S
INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioning unions challenge an award of the Industrial Tribunal dated January 31, 1969 in References Nos. 290 and 291 of 1965. These references were made by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication of a claim for bonus for the year 1963-64 ending June 30, 1964.

(2.) Reference No. 290 of 1965 relates to the claim for bonus for made on behalf of the daily-rated workmen employed by the 2nd respondent, the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Bombay, in their Wadala factory. The workmen claimed bonus at the rate of 6 months' total earnings for 1963-64, unconditionally. In Reference No. 291 of 1965, the staff working at the head office in Bombay and the monthly rated staff at the Wadala factory claimed bonus unconditionally at 30 per cent. of their total wages, inclusive of dearness allowance and whether they were in service or not after the close of the year. The 1st petitioner, 'Construction Employees' Union', represents the staff at the head office while the 2nd petitioner, 'Engineering Staff Union', represent the staff at the Wadala factory. As common points arose in the two reference, the 1st respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, disposed them of by a common judgment.

(3.) The Indian Hume Pipe Company manufactures and sells cement-concrete goods like Hume pipes, Hume steel pipes and penstock pipes. It has a standing of over 40 years and it has 60 factories relevant time, spread all over India. Its profit and loss account for the year ending June 30, 1964 shows that it made a profit of Rs. 27,26,982 during that year. The company paid bonus to workmen employed in most of its branches and to the supervisory staff employed at the head office but for one reason or another bonus had remained to be paid to those whose demand is now under adjudication. The wages paid by the company were said to be much below the living wage and, therefore, the demand was made in terms of gross earnings.