DANIEL DORAIRAJ Vs. MANAGEMENT OF THE BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of an application made under section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for computation in terms of money the goods attendance bonus for October 1958, granted to the workers concerned by an award made under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Certain demands were made by a section of the workmen of the Buckingham and Carnatic co. , Ltd. , on 29th March 1955, on the management and this was followed by a strike notice on 5-10-1955. The workmen concerned actually went into a strike on 24th November, 1955. The same day, the State Government in exercise of their powers under section 10 (1) (c) of the Act, referred the disputed to the industrial tribunal, Madras. But it would appear that an agreement was arrived at between the management and the workmen to have the dispute referred to private arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. 1940. In view of the agreement, the next day, i. e. , 25th November, 1955, the strike was called off. Evidently giving effect to the agreement, the Government directed a reference to private arbitration. The original a reference under section 10 (1) (c) stood therefore dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 29th February, 1956. The private arbitration ended in an award dated 19-1-1957. On the foot of this award, a decree of court also followed which is dated 12th April, 1957. One of the reliefs awarded under the award, was the good attendance bonus for October, 1958 to the workmen.

(2.) BEFORE the Labour Court, on behalf the management of the Buckingham and carnatic Co. Ltd. , the objection was taken that the application was not maintainable under Sec. 33-C (2 ). Their contention was that what was contemplated by " any benefit" in subs-section (2) of section 33-C should be under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that if any workman outside the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act that could not be the subject-matter of an application under section 33-C (2 ). This view of the scope of sub-section (2) of section 33-C found favour with the Labour court with the result that the application for conversion of the benefit into money was dismissed. The aggrieved workman has therefore, come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) FOR the petitioner in this court, it has been strenuously contended that subsection (2) of section 33-C is of a wide scope, uncontrolled by the provisions of subs-section (1) and that any benefit whatever the sources of it may be, provided it related to the terms and conditions of employment of workman which is capable of being computed in terms of money, would fall within the scope of sub-section (2 ). In support of this contention particular reference is made to the repealed section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. Sub-section (1) of this section is in terms identical with those of sub-section (1) of 33-C of the industrial Disputes Act. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 20 of the 1950 Act reads: