B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -company, Grahams Trading Company (India), Ltd., is a trading concern. Between the years 1940 and 1952, the petitioner -company admittedly used to pay to its employees, at or about the time of the pujas each year, a sum of money equivalent to basic salary for one month, as ex gratia payment. Such payment was, however, discontinued in the year 1953. Respondent 2, Grahams Employees' Union, asserted that the payment, made at or about the time of thepujas each year, was in reality payment of customary puja bonus, although called ex gratia payment, and the petitioner -company had no right to discontinue such payment. This raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was ultimately referred, by the State Government, to an industrial tribunal for adjudication. That tribunal found in favour of the petitioner -company and rejected the case of respondent 2 union that the payment, made at or about the time of the pujas each year, was really payment made by way of customary puja bonus. Respondent 2 union appealed against the award before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the award of the industrial tribunal and directed the petitioner -company to pay one month's basic salary as puja bonus for the year 1953. The petitioner -company appealed against the award of the Labour Appellate Tribunal before the Supreme Court. By its judgment, dated 7 May 1959, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, holding, inter alia, that the payment although described as ex gratia payment, really constituted payment of customary puja bonus, equivalent to one month's basic salary.
(2.) WHILE the dispute as to payment of bonus for the year 1953 was pending, respondent 2 union claimed bonus for the year 1954, but that claim was rejected by the petitioner -company. In the year 1955, however, the petitioner -company paid to its workmen an amount equivalent to one and half months' basic salary, at or about the time of the pujas, but described the same as ex gratia payment. Thereafter, in the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, the petitioner -company paid to its workmen two months' basic salary as advance, at the time of the pujas, on the express condition that the said advances would have to be repaid and the terms of repayment would be entirely at the discretion of the petitioner -company. The other condition attached to the advances made was that the question of repayment of the advances would not arise until the decision of the Supreme Court became known. The advances were accepted by the workmen of the petitioner -company and respondent 2 union on the terms mentioned, Here in below, I Bet out one of the letters by the petitioner -company to respondent 2 union, containing the terms on which the aforementioned advances were made: Reference is made to the resolutions extracts of, which have been famished to the management and in order that an amicable settlement is reached, now makes its final offer of two months' basic salary as advance to all members of the union. The question of repayment will not arise until such time as the award of the Supreme Court in connexion with the dispute which is pending regarding the payment of bonus in previous years is made known.It should, however, be clearly understood that the two months' basic salary now being offered to all members of the union is an advance of salary, and is irrespective of the award which will be made by the Supreme Court and the terms of repayment of this advance are to be left entirely to the discretion of the management. The judgment of the Supreme Court over the dispute as to bonus for the year 1953 was delivered on 7 May 1959. In the meantime the petitioner -company had advanced to its workmen two months' basic salary, for each of the years 1956,1957 and 1958, in all, six months' basic salary. Under the Judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioner -company became liable to pay to its workmen one month's basic salary as puja bonus for the year 1953 and because of the reasoning given in the said judgment became also liable to pay to its workmen the same amount as puja bonus for the years 1954,1956,1957 and 1958. The petitioner -company was not required to pay any separate bonus for the year 1955 because the ex gratia payment of one and half months' basic salary, made in the year 1955, which more than covered the liability for payment of puja bonus for that year. The petitioner -company, however, did not separately pay to its workmen the amount of puja bonus payable by it in each year 1953,1954, 1956,1957 and 1958, but adjusted five out of six months' basic salary, advanced to the workmen as hereinbefore stated, against bonus payable for the aforesaid years. For the year 1959, however, the petitioner -company separately paid one month's basic salary as puja bonus to its workmen. This the petitioner -company claimed to have done in exercise of its discretion as to repayment of the advances which had been reserved to itself.
(3.) THIS form of adjustment was, however; resented by respondent 2 union and the resentment was ultimately converted into an industrial dispute. The State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 10 or the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the industrial dispute to the second industrial tribunal for adjudication. The issues that were placed before the tribunal for adjudication ultimately stood as here in below stated: (1) Whether the complaint that the company has not paid bonus for 1953 in terms of the Supreme Court award is justified? To what relief, if any, are the workmen entitled ? (2) Bonus for the years 1954, 1956,1957, 1958 and 1959. ;