PATEL MILLS CO LTD Vs. TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing textiles. The petitioners factory is situated at Ahmedabad and the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 (Bombay Act No. 11 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the matter of its relations with its employees. The respondent is a representative Union of the workers working in the petitioners factory and in the matter of payment of bonus the petitioner Company is governed by the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Bonus Act).

(2.) In the accounting year 1967 the petitioner Company had incurred a loss of about Rs. 5 90 0 without any provision being made for depreciation and therefore it had not declared any bonus for its employees. The respondent Union made a demand for the payment of minimum bonus under sec. 10 of the Bonus Act from the petitioner Company. As the petitioner Company did not agree to that demand dispute was referred to the Conciliation Officer but no settlement was arrived at before that officer and thereafter a reference was made to the Industrial Court regarding the liability of the petitioner Company to pay the minimum bonus under sec. 10 of the Act. Before the Industrial Court the petitioner Company contended that sec. 10 of the Bonus Act did not apply to a concern making a positive loss and therefore the petitioner Company was not liable to pay the minimum bonus to its employees. This contention of the petitioner Company was rejected by the Industrial Court and in coming to this conclusion the Industrial Court relied on its own award in another matter in the Textile Labour Association Ahmedabad v. The Fine Knitting Company Ltd. The petitioner has thereafter filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the award of the Industrial Court.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that sec. 10 cannot apply where there is a positive loss and it has contended that if sec. 10 of the Bonus Act is applicable even to establishments which are making heavy losses then sec. 10 of the Act would be ultra vires Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner has contended that sec. 10 of the Bonus Act being ultra vires Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is non est in law and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct payment of minimum bonus under sec. 10 of the Bonus Act.