REGISTERED NO.D.221
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
P A RT II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 46] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1967 /PAUSA 27,1888
Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.
MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT & REHABILITATION
(Department of Labour & Employment)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 17th January 1967
S.O. 290.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1941), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal. Jabalpur in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Associated Cement Companies Limited, Nowrozabad and Kotma Colleries Post Office Nowrozabad and Kotma respectively, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on the 29th December, 1966.
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM --L.ABOUR COURT (CENTRAL) AT JABALPUR
Dated Jabalpur . December 23, 1966
PRESENT :
Sri G. C, Agarwala.—Presiding Officer.
ADJUDICATION CASE NO. 10 of 1966 (BOMBAY)
ADJUDICATION CASE NO, 18 OF 1966 (JABALPUR)
In the Matter of an Industrial Dispute in Relation to Associated Cement Companies Limited, Nowrozabad and Kotma Collieries, P.O Nowroza- bad and Kotma respectively. District Shahdol. Madhya Pradesh and their Workmen
( '47 )
i^i IHk OM&LLb Ut liNDlA fc,AJJCftl>iUALVilK.i |*OuU Al •
APPEARANCES;
For employers.—Shii I. M. Nanavvati und Sri G L Govil, Authoiised
Representative.
For workmen.—Shri K. B. ChouRle, General Secretary of tho Union
iNDUBTiiy: Cement.
DISTRICT: Shahdol
AWARD
By NoUlication Wo. 5/3/titi-LftII, dated 19th March, 19M Ministry of Labour, Emp-oymwit and Rehabilitation referred the following matter stated m the Schedule to the order of reference to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay.
Whether the workers of the Kotma and Nowrozaba-d CoJlleriet; of tho Asso- ciated Cenient Companies Limited are enutled to pront shdi'iiiH bonus lor the years 1959-bO, 1H00-61, 1081-fi^. 1M2-IW and 19fi,"i-fl4; if so, th<^ quantum of such bonus?
The proceedings remained pending before the said Tribunal from 28th March, 1966, till 2-4tn September, iyti6, whereaitcr it was transferred to this Tribunal by Notification No. tt/141/fl£S LiKlI dated 17th September, XHB1).
Both parties filed their written statements before the Bombay Tribunal. The employers, Associated Cement Compames .Ltd., to be hereinaiter described as thf Company, hied a preliminary written statement raising pre_jminary objections and prayed therein that it We preliminary objections are ove.-ruied tiiey woulu nie written statement on merits. On this, the workmen hied their rejoinaer before Ibis '.tribunal, 'i'ne case was taiten up on 2nd December, lfcbb, tor hearing on preliminary objections and on behail of the company written a, guments were tiled, a copy oi which was given to tne workmen's representative to nte similarly written ar&uments, if desired, which they have not done, iheir arguments, how- ever, had been heard at length. Since the preliminary objection prevai s, it has become unnecessary to call upon the Company to hie written statement on me. its and to go into the controversy on tacts.
The Company has a number of cement works and some collieries including the Kotma and JNowrozabad collieries. They have been paying bonus on a central accounting basis of all then- units but after the passing of the Coai Mines Provi- dent i'und and Bonus Scheme Act 1948 and the bonus Scheme f_amed thereunder, no bonus is being paid to the workmen of the collieries except those who are getting more than R& 300 P.M. as wages. This is because under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme workers who get wages less than Ks. 300 are entitled to bonus under the said Scheme. The workmen represented by the Kotma Colliery Maz- door Sangh and the Nowrozabad Colliery Mazdoor Sansh raised the dispute for the first time on 19th February, 1981, that the workers were entitled to Front Sharing Bonus apart f-om the Bonus Scheme of 1948. During the conciliation the Company took up the stand that no bonus was admissible because the workers we.e being paid bonus under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act 194B, to be hereinafter described as Coal Mines Bonus Scheme. The concilia- tion having failed, the Union pressed the Government for reference but the Gov- ernment intimated that since the Bonus Commission was already seized with the matter no reference was expedient After the report of the Bonus Commis- sioo and the Ordinance followed by the Bonus Act, the Union pressed the demand for a reference and which in due course has resulted in this reference. Although the demand was for the year 1950-60 the stand of the Union Is that it was a con- tinuing demand for subsequent years also whereas the position taken up by the Company is that there had oeen no fresh demand by the Union for the years under reference. The point, however, ia immaterial since In my opinion the workmen are not entitled to bonus prior to the enactment of the Bonus Act. For the same reason another preliminary objection raised by the Company that the demand is belated need not be gone into.
Before going into the question whether the Coal Mines Bonus Act and Scheme would deprive the workmen for a claim of Profit Bonus It wou d be necessary to examine the nature of the bonus guaranteed by the said Scheme lo workers cf collie ies. It has to be seen if this is an attendance bonus or includes all types of claim or bonus including a claim for profit bonus. To determine this, it would be necessary to go into the historical retrospect how the Coal Mines Bonus Schema and Act came to be enacted and what are Ita salient features.
>Jit~ Jfc">j >LU- O'^iAJ-*- Ul' liNpM. llJUi*At"U*lJHAK-.¥ M"
The Government of India, by their Notification dated 5th February, 1947, con- stituted a Board of Conciliation (for BengaL and Bihar; under the Trade Disputes. Act 1929 (An Act which p. eceded the Industrial Disputes Act 1947) for promot- ing settlement of disputes in Coal fields. The Conciliation Board submitted its report dated 12th April 1847. The Government of India vide Resolution dated JIHh May, 1947, accepted ihr recommendations of the Board. Several demands were put forward by the Workers' Unions before the Conciliation Board and they vvere as many as thirty-three demands. Demand No. 4 out of the said demands was for "Pioflt sharing Bonus." With reference to profit sharing bonus, a claim was made by the workmen for four months' pay as bonus and the basis of the demand was that four months' bonus was being granted to colliery workers of the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and should a no be enjoyed by the workers em- ployed in othor coal minrs. After considering the demand for Profit Bonus, the Conciliation Board in their report observed as under: —
"We l"c(jl that ioui months' "basic" pay as bonus should be granted, hringing the rest o£ the Industry into line with the Tata Iron & Steel Company's collieries, but. that this should be split into two months of calculation, the second of which, w; believe, will provide .still further Incentive to increased production.
• n i Two months' besie earnings as bonus, dependent on attendance. In l.he case of H miner or other underground piece worker, he shall .'lusUfy by completing not less than 190 days attendance per annum. In the case of a weekly or monthly paid employee or surface piece worker, lie shall qualify by completing 265 days attendance per annum. This may be known a?, "Attendance Bonus".
(]>• t\ figure- of cost per ton has been determined for two months basic earnings calculated from Tata's figures of numbers qualifying, and iheir earnings, and relating this back to raisings during the given period.
It i;> intended that this figiui- oi Hs.. . a to be calculated by the Industry) per ton iii coal raised, shall be set a?lrlo and at the end of the year shall be shared out amongst those qualifying bv attendance, and according to their basic earn- ings qualify ing periods a3 in (p.). The advantages of this proposal are that the greater the output the greater the 3hareout, and provides the incentive for every worker to give his best and 30 reduce the numbers required with a resultant higher O.M.S. This may be named "Production Bonus".
The only further qualification, concerning both attendance und production bonus is that the beneficiary shall not have taken part in an illegal strike during tUe qualifying period.
We recommend that any dispute concerning bonus shall be settled at the instance of the Conciliation Officer or a Senior Officer of the Department of Mmes sitting with the two parties concerned. At the same tune we anticipate that the Industry and the workers v-ril! co-operate to make the scheme an un- qualified success."
In order to implement the- recommendations of the Conciliation Board an Ordinance styled a^ "The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme 6rdi- nance 1948" was promulgated on 23rd April, 1948 and the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was framed thereunder. The Ordinance ceased to have affect on expiry of six months (on 23rd October. 1948). The Scheme which was framed under the Ordinance was o£ a permanent nature and the Parliament, therefore, enacted the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act 1948 (Act 46 of 1948) and the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme framed under the Ordinance continued unaer the Act. The statement of object;; and reasons to the said enactment reads as under:—•
"The Board of Conciliation appointed in 1947 in connection with certain disputes in the Bengal and Bihar Coal Fields recommended the pay- ment of bonus to and the establishment of Provident Fund for the employees in Coal Mines. With a view to implementing these re- commendations, the Government promulgated the Coal Mines pro- vident Fund and Bonus Schemes Ordinance 1948" on 23rd April 1B48. A Coal Mines Bonus Scheme has since been framed under that Ordi- nances and the details of Provident Fund Scheme are being worked out"
"As the life of an Ordinance Is six months, the Ordinance will cease fo bo effective on the 23rd October, 1948. As the Schemes which are being framed under it miirt bir continued beyond that date, thts Bffl
lj^J
IHft (MZJ6.HJE OF liNUU fi^IKAOWJLNARl [I'AJU 11-
seeks to replace the Ordinance by an Act." (Gazette of India 1948 Part V, p.6u7).
From the above historical background it is clear lhat the Coal Miut-s Bonus Scheme has its roots In the recommendations of the Conciliation Board which were again consequent upon a demand for four months' profit bonus made by the Coal Mine Workers on the analogy of such, profit bonus being paid year to ycin' by the Collieries of Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.
thereunder are as under:-—
The selieut features of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme and the Bonus paid •
Employees whose basic earnings do not exceed Rs. 300/- per month, are admissible to bonus under the Scheme. An employee of category 1 should put in attendance of not less than 60 days In a quarter and an employee of category II must put in attendance of not leS3 than 63 days in a quarter in order to be entitled to bonus under the Scheme.
The amount of bonus shall b
Participation in illegal strike dis-entitles a workman to Bonus under the Scheme if such strike is declared illegal by the Regional Labour Commissioner.
Bonus is payable within two months of the ending of the quarter and un- claimed bonus is to be credited to "Reserve Account."
It ia to be noticed from the provisions of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme that the Bonus envisaged by the Scheme is standardisation of all kinds of bonus so far aa the coal mine workers are concerned and it is not any special kind of bonus like Attendance Bonus and/or Production Bonus.
Furthermore, the Act defines Bonus under Section 2 (a) as meaning "Any sum of money payable to an employee under Coal Mines Bonus Scheme framed under the Act It is significant that Bonus is denned in such wide terminology by Section 2(a) of the Act. evidently because the Parliament intended to emb- race within the bonus payable under the Scheme all kinds of bonus and to avoid any industrial depute being raised as to Attendance Bonus, Production Bonus or Profit Bonus under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act Beintf a controlled Industry, the variation in profits between one colliery and another was not expected to be much and It was therefore possible to standardise bonus which was to be paid in addition to wages and being a controlled industry over which the country is vitally interested, the Parliament also wanted industrial peace by avoiding disputes as to bonus year to year in one colliary or the other It was with this Intention and object in view that the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme was framed and bonus was directed to be paid equivalent to 25% of the ba^c earnings in lieu of all kinda of bonus which can be demanded by way of indus- trial disputes being raised by the workmen and it is therefore thlt no nomen- clature to either Attendance Bonus or Production Bonus or Profit Bonus was SV™-d° b^U* t hPT E18 """V* *J* °O al M i n e3 B o n us Scheme? Th™ bom£"which is paid under the Scheme also does not partake the character of any special type of bonus, the condition as to attendance which is imposed by the Scheme is to encourage attendance and thereby enable the collieries to earn reasonabkprofits £ i £m bHni? CB? hu P&1^ , B ulS U^ c o n d i t i°n having been Incorporated ui th- Scheme does not characterise the bonus payable under the scheme as "Attenl dance Bonus" It may be noted that even where the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Appellate Tribunal was granting Profit Bonus in the past it w af usual with them To impose a condition as to certain attendance on the part o7a work- man before he becomes eligible to bonus awarded by the Tribunal as Profit Bonus. Thus, condition as to attendance is a condition as to the euaibiUtv for bonus under the Scheme and by such condition as to eUgibility i; doesf not become "Attendance Bonus' as distinguished from any otheF kind of bon^s.
It Is manifest that bonus paid under the Scheme ia an addition to the WSSP which the coal mine worker is entitled to and it embraces wS its seopTaU kinds aj bonus, be it profit bonus, attendance bonus or p r o d u c™ bonus and it standardises bonus in the sense of an addition to wage beinB paid by the coUie rU" to their workmen statutory so as to avoid and o b v i a t e " i n d u s t r i a l d f f i Si Confer? d"lming bonus at the end of every year atwiwrt e a c h a n o w wy
!>£& 3
i$i
The bonus payable to the workers of coal mines under the Coal Mines Boiius Act ajid Scheme is not only an Attendance Bonus but includes the claim lor a Profit Bonus also and has always been treated to be so even by the workers of the collieries is further evident by the fact that throughout all these years no Union or a Federation of coal mines workers had ever claimed Profit Bonus. It was for the first time that the Union raised this claim in 1961. The dispute is first of its kind raised by the Unions of these collieries. It may be noticed that in respect of years 1956-57 to 1958-59 there was a reference to National Tribunal for the payment of bonus to be paid to the employees of this Company both at headquarters, branches and works including quarries. The award of the National tribunal presided by Sri Salim Me-chant in Ref. No. 1 of 1961 delivered on 5th November, 1964 shows that no claim was made by any union for bonus to the workers of the collieries. The Unions of these collieries did not apply before the said Tribunal to be made parties and failed to contend that they were also entitl- ed to bonus.
There is yet another circumstance to show that the Unions and Federation of Workers of the collieries had never conceived a claim of Profit Bonus in the past and had all along been treating bonus payable under the Coal Mines Act and Scheme as inclusive of the profit bonus. The Central Wage Board for the coal mines industry issued a questionnaire both to the workmen as weu as to the employers and question no. 40 of the said questionnaire reads as under:—
"Do you have any system of paying profit-sharing bonus in your unit or units? If so, please give details?"
In answer to this question, the Emp^yers' Organisations consisting of the Indian Mining Association, The Indian Mining Federation. The Indian Colliery Owners' Association and M.P. and Vidharbha Mining Association through a Jomt Committee replied as under:
"The practice of paying profit sharing bonus in addition to the existing bonus has not been adopted in the Coal Mining Industry for nume- rous reasons which have been explained to the Bonus Commission.
The Indian National Mine Workers' Federation, to which the Kotma Colliery Maz- door Saneh and the Nowrozabad Colliery Mazdoor Sangh are affiliated, replied to the said Question No. 40 as under: —
"Profit sharing bonus has been denied to the workmen in the Coal Mining Industry though the industry is prosperous and there are companies which pay dividend as high as 95%."
The answer to the Questionnaire both by the Unions and the employers, more particular^ by the Indian National Mine Workers' Federation, shows beyond doubt that in no colliery so far before it came to be covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 profit bonus has been paid in addition to bonus under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme.
The claim for Production Bonus has been conceived obviously because of some observations made by the Bonus Commission in paragraph 14.2 at pasre 69. The coal industry co^tendpd that the industry had already be^n payine Profit Bonus under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme and Act and they should not be saddled fur- ther with statutory bonus un^er the Bonus Act The contention was rejected. The Commission observed as follows: —
"It might also transpire that m the case of this industry which has never paid profit bonus, the payment of a minimum bonus may necessitate some, though not appreciable, increase in the price of coal."
The above observation would show that the Commission was not concerned so much with the nature of the bonus which has been paid under the Coal Mines Bonus Act and Scheme than with the question whether the imposition should or should not be made applicable to this industry also. The prime consideration with the Commission was that even though it may entail a little increase in the cost the workers in this industry should also participate and be entitled to the statutory bonus. Conseauently, just because the management of the collieries have to pav a further statutory bonus under the Bonus Act in addition to the bonus payable under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Act and Scheme thereunder is no ground to suppose that the bonus which had been paid in the past under the Coal Mines Bonus Act and Scheme did not include profit bonus. The years in question are not covered by the Bonus Act and Section 33 of the said Act has already been struck down bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That being so. without coins into the other obiections of the Company that there had been no demand lor bonus for "the years 1961-62 onwards and that "the claim for all these years "is a belated need no f"rthrr enquiry.
I$£ IHK GAZETTE OF JND1A EXTHAORDINAJLV [PAII 11-SEC, S(ii)J
The result is that profit sharing bonus is not payable to the workers of these lollieries because they had been receiving bonus under the Coal Mines Provi- dent Fund and Bonua Act and Scheme thereunder. The reference is answered tccordingly. No order Is made for costs.
(Sd.) G. C. AGAHWALA,
Presiding Officer. [No. S/3/66-LRTI.]
K. I V1DYASAGAR, Jt. Sew.
PUNTED IS JNDIA BY 1HJ1 OJUIRAI. MANAGEB, eavEBNMENT OP LND1A ViptBS, "rW GMXJP AJJtt PtJBUSHDl 01 mB MANAT7EB O> i'(rRT,tCATK)N.1, UctST, 1HR7