Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) This case assails the order dated 25th June, 1999 passed by the first Industrial Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the writ petitioner for hearing the reference on the question of jurisdiction and also the point of maintainability about the competency of the State Government for making such reference. Shown of unnecessary details, the petitioner's case in short is; the petitioner No. 1 has been registered as a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of publication of newspapers and journals of 'The Statesman' which is a leading daily newspaper in India. The petitioner No. 2 is a share-holder as such he carries on business through the agency and/or instrumentality of the company. It is stated that by reason of illegal and wrongful acts of the workmens' complained of hereinafter. The rights of the petitioner No. 2 to carry on such business has been and/or is seriously prejudiced and the business of petitioner No. 1 may also seriously be affected.
(2.) The company entered into a settlement with its workmen on 22nd September, 1993 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with Rule 68 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. In the settlement, it has been laid down the manner and method of payment of bonus to the employees of the company for some years. In the said settlement, the Clause (I) has been quoted as follows : Clause (1) "That for the accounting year 1992-93, the Company shall pay to each eligible employee (by the expression 'eligible employee' meant such employees who come within the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, during the relevant accounting year Bonus at the rate of 15.5% of the salary/wage earned during the relevant accounting year. For the accounting year 1993-94, the rate shall be 16% of the salary/wage earned by the employee during the relevant accounting year. For the accounting year 1994-95, the rate shall be 16.5% of the salary/wage earned by the employee during the relevant accounting year. For the accounting year 1995-96, the rate shall be 17% of the salary/wage earned by the employee during the relevant accounting year. All other conditions will remain same for the accounting years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96." In Clause (X) of the settlement it was agreed among the petitioner No. 1 and its employees which is as follows : "That the employees who otherwise answer the description of 'workmen' as laid down in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but do not answer the description of 'employee' as laid down in The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, being in enjoyment of salary/wage exceeding Rs. 2,500/- per month, shall also be paid Bonus on the above basis, but in their case it will be a lump sum payment of Rs. 3,100/- for the accounting year 1992-93, Rs. 3,250/- for the accounting year 1993-94, Rs. 3,400/- for the accounting year 1994-95 and Rs. 3,575/- for the accounting year 1995-96 instead of the rates of 15.5%, 16%, 16.5% and 17% respectively and subject to the further condition that if any such employee is not present on all working days during the respective accounting years, the quantum of Bonus shall be reduced proportionately in this case." But subsequently, when there was a dispute between the employer company and its workmen there was a conciliation proceeding for adjudication but after it being failed the State Government has referred the matter again to the Industrial Disputes for adjudication under Section 10 of the said Act which has been quoted as follows : "Whether the employees covered under Clause (X) of settlement dated 22.9.93 will be entitled to proportionately higher amount of bonus than that of the employees covered under Clause (I) of the said settlement of prevailing practice even after recent amendment of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 by ordinance in 1995". The petitioner company has filed an application challenging the maintainability and also the jurisdiction of the present reference. The present reference relates to the enforcement of the Clause 10 of the settlement which entitled the employees of proportionately higher amount of bonus than that of the employees covered under Clause (1) of the said settlement after the Payment of Bonus Amendment Act, 1995, came into force. The main ground of objection raised by the company is that when there is a doubt as regards the interpretation of Clause (X) of the settlement, necessary procedure that should have been adopted is to make a reference under Section 36(A) of the Act but the State Government could not have in such situation referred a dispute under Section 10 of the said Act, therefore, the reference infact bad in law and it confers no jurisdiction upon the Tribunal.
(3.) While disposing of the objection, the learned Tribunal on a careful analysis of the various provisions of the said Act was inclined to reject the application and directed the matter to be answered under Section 10 of the said Act. Therefore, being aggrieved by and affected with the said observations of the Tribunal, the Company has filed this writ.;