STATE OF MYSORE Vs. WORKERS OF GOLD MINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal with special leave by the State of Mysore against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, on 24-11-1956, in Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1956 between the employers in relation to the Gold Mines of the Kolar Gold Fields, Mysore, and their workmen. The employers were the Champion Reef Gold Mines of India (KGF) Ltd., Mysore State, the Mysore Gold Mining Company (KGF) Ltd., Mysore State and the Nundydroog Mines (KGF)Ltd., and their allied establishments the Central Administration, the Kolar Gold Fields Electricity Department, the Kolar Gold Field Hospital and the Kolar Gold Field Watch and Ward establishment. The dispute between these employers and their workmen arose from the claim made by the workmen for bonus for the calendar years 1953 and 1954. The Unions representing the workmen alleged that the employers had sufficient available surplus in their hands from which they could and should be awarded bonus for the two years in question. The Union representing the workmen in Mysore Gold Mining Co. Ltd., demanded four months wages and five months wages as bonus for the years 1953 and 1954 respectively. The Union on behalf of the Nundydroog Mines demanded four months total wages as bonus for 1953 and 1954 whereas the workmen in Champion Reef Gold Mines demanded four months wages as bonus for the said two years. The management opposed these demands on the ground that there was no available surplus for both the years in all the mines and so no bonus can be awarded. In substance, the tribunal has rejected the case made out by the management and has passed an award in favour of the workmen. Taking into consideration all relevant factors the tribunal has awarded as bonus wages at the rate of one and half months in 1953 and three months in 1954 to the workers of Champion Reef Mines Ltd., 2 1/2 months in 1953 and three and half months in 1954 to the workers of the Nundydroog Mines Ltd., and one month's in 1953 and three months in 1954 to the workers of the Mysore Gold Mines Co. Ltd. In regard to the workmen employed in the allied establishments the tribunal has awarded as bonus one month's wages in the year 1953 and two months basic wages in the year 1954.

(2.) It was urged before the tribunal by the management that it would be inappropriate to apply the Full Bench formula evolved by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the Mill Owners Association, Bombay vs. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, 1950 Lab LJ 1247 (LATI-Bom) (A) without suitable modifications to the case of the mines. The argument was that, unlike the textile industry, gold mining is a wasting industry, and the adjustment of the rival claims of the employer and the employee, even on the basis of social justice, cannot be properly made by the rigid application of the said formula. In the case of gold mines it is of considerable importance that the industry should invest a large amount in search of new ore and higher expenditure has to be incurred even for renewal and replacement of machinery. The tribunal accepted the argument that the special requirements of the gold mining industry would have to be considered in dealing with the workmen's claim for bonus, but neverheless it was inclined to take the view that the principles laid down by the labour appellate tribunal in arriving at the Full Bench formula should be adhered to.

(3.) The next argument which was raised before the tribunal was based on sub-para (5) in the lease deed executed in favour of the management on 20-2-1949. The case for the management was that the management was entitled to deduct 15 per cent. of the revenue expenditure as a prior charge in calculating the available surplus. It was urged that the relevant clause in the lease deed required the management to create a reserve fund to meet depreciation and development expenditure of a capital nature and to provide for the search of new ore and it was urged that the amount debited by the management in pursuance of this clause should be treated as a prior charge. The tribunal was not impressed by this argument. It held that a separate fund for finding out new ore and keeping the longevity of the industry was absolutely necessary but it was not satisfied that the covenant in the lease on which reliance was placed by the management could bind the workmen and that the amount in question could be treated as a prior charge. The tribunal also found that no evidence had been adduced before it that any part of the amount thus debited had been in fact used for any of the purposes mentioned in the covenant. According to the tribunal there was also no evidence that, in addition to the statutory depreciation any further allowance should be made for rehabilitation reserve and it held that it was not shown that any amount had in fact been spent for rehabilitation in the two relevant years. On these findings the amount of Rs. 20.26 lakhs on which the management relied was not allowed by the tribunal because, in its opinion, the said amount was a mixture of very many items depending upon the options exercised by the management under the terms of the joint operation schemes.