- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26-9-1994 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act (herein after referred to as is the 'act' ). The parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore the petition in being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) RAJENDRA Dev, respondent No. 3, filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act before the Payment of Wages Authority on 27-7-1990 on the ground that Rs. 22,450. 60 had not been paid to him contrary to the pro visions of the Act. He accordingly claimed that a direction be issued to the employers M/s. Hari Ferlizers (petitioner) to make payment of the aforesaid amount to him together with compensation amounting to Rs. 2,24,506. The amount claimed by respondent No. 3 consisted of four items namely (1) Rs. 823. 22 as wages for the period from 1-5-1989 to 16-5-1989; Rs. 13,615. 38 as compensation for closure of the factory calculated on the basis of twenty years of service; (3) Rs. 3,860 as minimum bonus for the years 1984, 1987 and 1985, and (4) Rs. 1,152 as encashment of 24 days leave. The applica tion was contended by the employers on various grounds. The payment of Wages Authority by his order dated 25-2-1994 held that respondent No. 3 was entitled to Rs. 274. 77 as wages for the period from 1-5-1989 to 16-5-1989 after adjustment of the advance taken by him, Rs. 3,860 as minimum bonus for three years, Rs. 1,152 towards encashment of leave and thus he was entitled to Rs. 5,236,77. The Authority was further of the opinion that the employers should pay five times of the aforesaid amount namely Rs. 26,433 '85 as com pensation and Rs. 100 as cost. The appellate authority held that house rent, electricity charges and imprest account were liable to be adjusted. Accord ingly it was directed that respondent No. 3 was entitled to Rs. 5,038. 77 five times of the aforesaid amount amounting to Rs. 25,195. 85 as compensation. The employers have filed the present writ petition for quashing of the afore said order. The principal submission of Shri Kavin Gulati and V. B. Agarwal, learned counsel for the employers (petitioner) is that "wages" as defined under Section 2 (vi) does not include any bonus which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a court. It is thus contended that the claim for Rs. 3,860 made by respondent No. 3 towards bonus for the years 1984, 1987 and 1988 was wrongly allowed by the authorities. The respondent No. 3 has, however submitted that in view of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (vi) of Section 2 wages would include any addi tional remuneration payable under the terms of employment whether called a bonus or by any other name and as the claim was for a minimum bonus it would be "wages" and therefore a claim for the same was maintainable before the Payment of Wages Authority. I have given my careful consideration to the contention advanced by the parties. There is no evidence on record to show that bonus by respon dent No. 3 was an additional remuneration payable under the terms of em ployment. In those circumstances, the claim for bonus could not be treated as a claim for wages as defined under Sec. 2 (vi) (c) of the Act and the Autho rities had therefore no jurisdiction to give a direction for its payment in the present proceedings. In Bala Subrahmanya Rajaram v. S. C. Patil and Others. , AIR 1958 SC 518, it was held that where the bonus is payable not because of a con tract but contract of an award of an Industrial Court, it is not "wages" within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act as it stood before its amendment in 1957 and also after its amendment, and consequently the Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain petitions made to it under Section 15 of the Act in respect of such bonus. In Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand and Others, v. Madras Chillies Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union and Another. AIR 1969 SC 530, it was held that Payment of Bonus Act is an exhaustative Act dealing comprehensively with the subject matter of bonus in all its aspects. It follows as a corollary that claim for bonus should be made in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and not before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. This view finds support from the decision of Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. The Labour Court, Jullundur and Others. , AIR 1979 SC 1981, where it was held that Payment of Gratuity Act enacts a com plete Code contaminating detailed provisions covering all the essential features of scheme for payment of gratuity and that proceedings for payment of the same may be taken under that Act and not any other Act. It was further held that an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for claim to gratuity was not maintainable and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to two decisions where the precise question as to whether a claim for bonus could be entertained by an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has been considered by Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts. In Junior Labour Inspector v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1970 LLJ 484 a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a claim for bonus could not be made before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Similar view has been taken in Major D. Aranha v. Universal Radiator t, 1975 LLJ 254, by a Division Bench of Madras High Court.
(3.) IT, therefore, follows that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have erred in issuing a direction for payment of Rs. 3,860 as bonus to respondent No. 3 as they had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction. This amount has therefore to be reduced. In normal course, I would have remanded the matter for afresh decision to the appellate authority. But as this will cause unnecessary delay and harrassment to the workman, 1 am doing the calculating part myself. The respondent No 3 is therefore entitled to Rs. 1,178. 77 (5038. 77- 3860. 00-1178. 77) and five times of the said amount namely Rs. 5,893. 63 as compensation. He is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,072. 62. Respondent No. 3 may claim bonus in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 26-94994 passed by the appellate authority is quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 7,072. 62 to respondent No. 3. The petitioner shall also pay Rs. 500 as cost to respondent No. 3. Petition partly allowed .;