MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN INDIA THEATRES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management-petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of the Labour Court dated January 15, 1966 by which in proceedings instituted under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a sum of Rs. 560 has been computed as bonus payable to Padam Sain Jain, workman (who is second respondent in this petition) for the financial year 1963-64. The Labour Court also allowed payment of another sum of Rs. 100 which had become due on account of a mistake in some calculation, thereby making a total of Rs. 660.

(2.) THE material facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent No. 2 workman was employed with the petitioner as an accountant but the management terminated his services with effect from May 9, 1964. The respondent was alleging wrongful dismissal and so both the parties approached the Conciliation Officer for settlement of the dispute. A settlement was arrived at between the parties on September 8, 1964 (copy filed as Annexure "b" ). Reference to its terms would be made in detail hereafter. Broadly speaking, under this settlement the management agreed to pay to the workman a sum of Rs. 2,500 in full and final settlement of all his claims on the management. The amount was paid the same day by cheque and a receipt for the amount has been filed (copy Annexure "d") while the covering letter of the cheque is Annexure "c". There is, therefore, no dispute that the respondent had obtained the amount that had been settled under the said settlement.

(3.) SUBSEGUENTLY the workman claimed bonus for the year 1963-64 and he moved the Labour Court on March 1, 1965 claiming four months' salary as bonus for the year 1963-64 besides an unauthorised deduction of Rs. 150, making a total claim of Rs. 1, 270. The grounds mentioned in the petition were that the management had declared bonus for the year in dispute, namely, 1963-64 in or about November, 1964 and the petitioner was entitled to it and that the settlement before the Conciliation Officer mentioned above did not cover the claim to the said bonus. It is also mentioned that the management had paid him bonus formerly from 1955 upto 1962. 63 and so he was for 196364 entitled to four months' salary as bonus. The management opposed the said application and they relied upon the settlement (copy Annexure "b") and contended that the settlement was in respect of all claims, including the claim for bonus and the application of the workman was frivolous. The Labour Court has found as a fact that the bonus for the year 1963-64 had been declared by the management sometime in October or November, 1964 and made the payments to their workmen in November, 1964 and disputed claim was the bonus for the financial year 1963-64. In respect of the legal effect of the settlement the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the bonus for the year in dispute had not fallen due on the date of the settlement and so it was not included within the settlement and since the bonus had been declared subsequently, the workman was entitled to receive the same. The Labour Court used as an argument that if a sum is paid in full and final settlement and by a statute something is granted to the worker working during the years prior to the settlement, then he would be entitled to that amount in spite of the fact he had already settled with the management. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court passed the order mentioned above.