Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D. 221

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 46] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1967/PAUSA 27,I888

Separate paging is riven to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT & REHABILTATION

(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 1947), 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 Colieries. 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-LABOUR 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 Pradash and their Workman

(147 )

Up,

i-UJi U A i A t lt lil li\lUil LJUKjUAkiAliMAiO !.$*** ±l

APPEARANCES:

For employers.—Shri I. M. Nanawati and Sri G. L. Govil, Authoii^d

Representative.

Far workmen.—Shri K. B. Choutfle, General Secretary of the Union.

INDUSTRY: Cement.

DISTRICT: Shahdo!.

AWARD

BY Mutnu-ution No. 5/3/tlti-LRII, dated 19th March. J060 Ministry of Labour, Jimp'oyment and Rehabilitation referred the ionowing mailer suited in the Schedule to the order of reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, rJombay.

SCHEDULE

Whether the workers of the Kotma and Nowrozabad Collieries of the Asso- ciated Cement Companies Limited are entitled to piojit sharing bonus for the years 19!>9-OU, 1960-61, Hlfil-fll', 1P82-6:* and 19fi?.-fi4¹ it so, the quantum of such bonus?

The proceedings remained pending before the said Tribunal from 28th March, I960 till 24in September, 1966, whereauer it was transferred 10 mis Tnounai bj NotUlcation No. a/141/66 LKJ.I dated 17tn September, lwtiS.

Both parties Hied tlieir written statements before the Bombay Tribunal. Thc- empioyers, Associated Cement Companies Ltd., to be hereinaiter described as the Company, iiiea a prelimmary written statement raising preliminary oojccuons and prayed therein That if tne preliminary objections are ove.-mied vhuy woum xaf written statement on merits. On this, the workmen tiled, their rejoinaer before this '.tribunal. The case was taKen up on 2nd iJeceniDer, lubt), tor hearing on preliminury objections and on behalf of the company written a-guments were Hied a copy ol which was given to tne workmen's representative to nle similarly written arguments, if desired, which they have not done, ±heir arguments, how- ever, had been heard at length. Since the preliminary objection prevai.s, U has become unnecessary to call upon the Company to file written statement on merits and to go into the controversy on facts.

The Company has a number of cement works and some co Merles including the Kotma and Nowrozabad collieries. They have been paying bonus on a central accounting basis of all their units but after the passing of the Coai Mines Provi- dent fund and Bonus Scheme Act 1948 and the Bonus Scheme Lamed thereunder, no bonus is being paid to the workmen of the collieries except those who are getting more than Rs. 300 P.M. as wages. This is because under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme workers who get wages less than Ha. 300 are entitled to bonus under the said Scheme. The workmen represented by the Kotma Colliery Maz- door Sanfih and the Nowrozabad Colliery Mazdoor Sangh raised the dispute for the first time on 19th February, 1961, that the workers were entitled to Profit 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 1948, 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- sion and the Ordinance foLowed 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 lor the year 1959-60 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 been no fresh demand by the Union for the years under reference. The point, however, is 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 of collie ies. It has to be seen it this is an attendance bonus or includes all types of claim cr 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 Scheme and Act came to be enacted and what ore iti salient features.

jtu Aym i IU u . i / i i lU ui AMWA, jiA.ii*Ai>JUU^MU

i '^

The Government of India, by their Notiflcation dated 5th February, 1947, con- stituted a Board of Conciliation (for Bengal and Bihar) under the Trade Disputes Act 192B (An Act which preceded the Industrial Disputes Act 1947) for promot- ing settlement of disputes in Coal iields. The Conciliation Board submitted its report dated 12th April U)47. The Government of India vide Resolution dated i2th Mav, 1947, accepted the recornmondatiOii.j of the Board. Several demands were put forward by the Workers' Unions before the Conciliation Board and they were aa many as thirty-three demands. Demand No. 4 out of the said demands was for "P. ofit sharing Bonus." With referenoe to profit sharing bonus, a claim was made by the workmen for four months' pay as bonus and the basis of the demand wan that four months' bonus was being granted to colliery workers of the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and should a so be enjoyed by the workers em- ployed in other coal mine¹*. After considering the demand for Profit Bonus the Conciliation Board in their lepori observed as under: —

'•v\> tetl that loui months' "basic" pay as bonus should be granted

I jp

lHfi tiAZEl IE Of li\iJXA £jaKjHA*tUlNfV*-i |,r;i*i i i-

seeks to replace the Ordinance by an Act," (Gazette of India 1948 Part V, p.6O7).

From the above historical background it ly clear that the Coal Mine? 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 ihe Coal Mine Workers on the analogy of such profit bonus being paid yeav to year by the Collieries of Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.

The .stdk'jjt features of the Cotd Mines Bonus Scheme and the Bonus paid thereunder are as under:—

Employees whose basic earnings do not exceed Rs. 300/- par 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 less than 85 days in a quarter in order to be entitled tn bonus under the Scheme.

The amount of bonus shall be: l/3rd of the basic earnings of the employees for work done during the quarter for which he qualifies for bonus.

Participation in illegal strike dls-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 is to be noticed from the provisions of thu Coal Mines Bonus Scheme that the Bonus envisaged by the Scheme is standardisation of all kinds of bonus so far as 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 i3 defined 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 dispute being raked as to Attendance Bonus, Production Bonus or Profit Bonus under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act Belnjz 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 115% of the basic earnings in lieu of all kinds of bonus which can be demanded by way of indus- trial disputes being raised by the workmen and it is therefore that np nomen- clature to either Attendance Bonus or Production Bonus or Profit Bonus wai given to bonus payable under the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme. The bonus 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 TeasonaWe profits so that bonus can be paid. But such condition having been incorporated In the Scheme does not characterise the bonus payable un&r the scheme as ''Atten dance Bonus'. It may be noted that even where the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Appellate Tribunal was granting Profit Bonus in the p a st it w a T u s iS with them to impose a condition as to certain attendance on the part of a 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 eliglbiUty for bonus under the Scheme and by such condition as to eligibility it doesT not become "Attendance Bonus" as distinguished from any other kind of bwfuV

Jtul s,n,m a n i f^st th at b o tiU³ ^a id u n d eF t he Scheme is an addition to the wage

e n 1

s°l.as to avoid and obviate* industrial d i l u t es Which the coal mine worker Is entitled to and It embraces within its scone Jn kinds of bonus, be it profit bonus, attendance bonus or production bonus a^d it standardises bonus in the sense of an addition to wage fieing paid by the S S t e- K S ^S ^r k m W ng rained for claiming bonus at the end of *v"ry year against each and1 every

bin. 3ca;J JHE GAAE11£ Oi< INDIA £XIRAGIUMAILJ

Ijl

The bonus, payable to the workers of coal mines under the Coal Mines Bonus Atjt and Scheme is not only an Attendance Bonus hut inrjudes the claim for 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 vjis far the first time that the Union raised this claim in 1961. The dispute Is flr^t of its kind raised by the Unions of these collieries. It may be nolired tha' in lespert of years 1956-57 to 1058-39 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 Kef. 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 -.aid Tribunal u> he made partu¹;- and fuilM 1o contend that they were also entitl- ed to bonus

1^2

rME GAZETTE OK INDIA EX1 RAORDlNAkV [VARI U-iec. 3(li)J

The result is that profit sharing bonus is not payable to the workers of these folU"rles because they had been receiving bonus under the Coal Mines Provi- imat Fund and Bonus Act and Scheme thereunder. The reference is answered •coordbufly, No order is made for costs.

(So¹.) G. C. AGAHWALA,

Presiding Officer LNo. 5/3/flfl-LEII.J

K. I VIDYABAGAR, Jt. Sery.

MOOTED IN JNDJA BY THE GENERAL MANACEH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VSfiSS,

WtW rturtti AMD PUBIJlHBri m mjr MVutiKB dr > imufCATrous, DBXBI, 1Q07