M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award dated 14 -4 -1981 in Industrial Reference No. 1 of 1979 of the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal' here in after).
(2.) THE petitioner is a co -operative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent No. 2 Railway Employees Cooperative Banking Society, Karamchari Sangh (for short, 'Karamchari Sangh' here in after) raised some disputes with the petitioners for payment of bonus for the years 1966 -67 to 1970 -71 but their demands were not met and therefore, the Karmchari Sangh moved an application on September 28, 1973 before the Conciliation Officer, Jodhpur. The petitioner did not put in appearance before the Conciliation Officer and did not settle the matter. There upon, by notification No. F1(1) 223) L&E;/74 dated August 19, 1974, the State Government referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Whether it is just and legal for the Railway Employees Co -operative Banking Society Limited, Jodhpur, for not giving bonus to its workmen, who are represented by Railway Employees Co -operative Banking Society Karamchari Sangh, Jodhpur, at the rate of 20% for the years 1966 -67 to 1970 -71 and if so to what relief are the workmen entitled ? A claim was filed by the Karamchari Sangh before the Tribunal where in the case was set up that it requested several times to the petitioner for the supply of copies of balance sheets for the years 1966 -67 to 1970 -71 but the copies of the balance -sheets were not supplied. Somehow, they managed to get them and on examination, it was revealed that the bonus was being paid at the minimum rate of 4% but the workmen were entitled to get bonus at the rate of 20% in view of the profits earned, the allocable surplus and the position of the allocable surplus and amount sit on and set off. As per the karam chari sangh, the position of the allocable surplus and amount set on are as under: Year Allocable Available Surplus Amount set on1966 -67 21,306.00 6956.001967 -68 20,938.00 4258.001968 -69 30,856.00 13611.001969 -70 25,968.00 6588.001970 -71 10,264.00 ... Reply was filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal in which variouspleas were raised. It was stated that the members of the Karamchari Sangh are not enitled to get more than minimum bonus. After distributing the net profits as required under Section 62 of the Act and Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules' here after), net profits become lesser and no allocable surplus remains. Balance sheets were not depecting the true picture of the matter. The claim made for bonus was belated. The provisions of the Societies Act would apply and not the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ('the Bonus Act' hereafter for brevity sake). The Karamchari Sangh filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner where in it was stated that the provisions of the Bonus Act will apply and not of the Societies Act. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration,: (1) Whether the employees of the opposite party are entitled to get bonus according to the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act or according to Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 1965 and the rules framed there under? (2) Whether the employees are not entitled to get more bonus on account of great delay and laches ? (3) At what rate the employees are entitled to get bonus ? After taking the material on record, the Tribunal held that the provisions of the Bonus Act, will be applicable and not of the Societies Act. It was also held that there was no inconsistency in the provisions so far as those of the Societies Act and the Bonus Act are concerned and though the Rules provide payment of bonus of not exceeding two months but it being inconsistent with the provisions of the Bonus Act, the Bonus Act will prevail. The Tribunal, held that the claim made was not belated as the workmen all through were making claims for the payment of bonus at the rate of 20% and it was the petitioner who did not supply them the balance -sheets. Lastly, it was held by the Tribunal that the balance -sheets of the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act were conclusive and under the provisions of the Bonus Act, the petitioners were not entitled for the various deductions which they have claimed in their balance -sheets while coming to the allocable surplus. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the workmen were entitled for bonus at the rate of 20%, the maximum; and not 4%, the minimum, as paid.
(3.) MR . Mridul, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, filed caveat and contested the admission of the case. I, therefore, heard both the learned Counsel at length.;