Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd. (A Company ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W P No. 29215 / 2018
GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 26/06/2019
Parties through their counsel.
The petitioner before this court has filed the present
writ petition being aggrieved by the Reference dated
22/02/2017 as well as the order dated 01/11/2018 passed in
case No. 10/ID/2017 by the learned Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, M.P.
Facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, reveal
that the respondent No.1 Company is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is having its plant located at Dewas. It has been further stated that a settlement was arrived at between the representative Union and the Employer on 05/03/2015 in respect of payment of bonus and Ex-gratia amount and it was resolved that bonus and Ex-gratia amount shall be paid to the workmen as under :
For the year 2014 - 15 Rs.7500/-
For the year 2015-16 Rs.8000/-
For the year 2016-17 Rs.8500/-
For the year 2017-18 Rs.9000/-
The factum of aforesaid settlement is not in dispute. That the Payment of Bonus Act was amended and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 01/01/2016 i.e. the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act 2015 and the minimum limit in respect of Bonus was enhanced from Rs. 3500 to HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 29215 / 2018 GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 2 ---
7000. On Account of amendment in the Payment of Bonus Act, the Union raised a demand stating that the minimum bonus has been enhanced from Rs. 3500 to 7000 and for the year 2015-16, as it was resolved between the parties that the workmen will get Rs. 8000 (Rs. 3500 as bonus) and the remaining ex-gratia amount, the bonus component deserves to be enhanced from Rs.3500 to Rs.7000 as under
amendment the limit has been enhanced to Rs.7000/-. The conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and thereafter reference was made to the Industrial Court. The reference was in respect of a demand of Rs.20000 per worker and the Industrial Tribunal has passed an award on 20/11/2018 holding that the workmen shall be entitled for the year 2015- 16 minimum bonus to the tune of Rs.7000 along with ex-
gratia amount ie., Rs.4500/-. Against the aforesaid the present Writ Petition has been filed.
The facts which are not in dispute reveals that for the year 2015-16 the amount fixed as per the settlement was Rs.8000 which included the minimum bonus ie., Rs.3500 + Rs.4500 as ex-gratia amount. The amendment to the Payment of Bonus Act came into existence on 1/1/2016 and the amendment reads as under :
THE PAYMENT OF BONUS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 NO. 6 OF 2016 [31st December, 2015.] An Act further to amend the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:--
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 29215 / 2018 GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 3 ---
1. (1) This Act may be called the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 2014.
2. In section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (13), for the words ''ten thousand rupees'', the words ''twenty- one thousand rupees'' shall be substituted.
3. In section 12 of the principal Act,--
(i) for the words ''three thousand and five hundred rupees'' at both the places where they occur, the words ''seven thousand rupees or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher'' shall respectively be substituted;
(ii) the following Explanation shall be inserted at the end, namely:--
'Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression ''scheduled employment'' shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.'.
4. In section 38 of the principal Act, for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:--
''(1) The Central Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.''.
In place of Rs.3500 - Rs.7000 has been substituted and in those circumstances, the bonus component which was Rs.3500 as per the settlement has been substituted by Rs.7000.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in passing an award dated 20/11/2018 which is based upon the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 29215 / 2018 GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 4 ---
This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in passing the award keeping in view the the amending Act and, therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment by this Court in the case of HJI - Division of Orient Paper Mill, Anooppoor Vs. State of MP and another (W.P.No. 5570/2010). The contention of the learned senior counsel is that once a settlement has been arrived at by the representative Unions, it is binding upon the parties keeping in view the Sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no dispute in respect of the aforesaid proposition of law. However, as there is an amendment in respect of the Payment of Bonus Act, the settlement has rightly been interfered only by substituting the amount for which the workmen is entitled on account of the amendment. The amendment is prospective in nature and, therefore, the award has not been passed in respect of earlier years but in respect of the years subsequent to the amendment. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph No.49 has held as under:-
"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 29215 / 2018 GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 5 ---
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of their authority'.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 29215 / 2018 GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 6 ---
superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W P No. 29215 / 2018 GAJRA GEARS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
--- 7 ---
unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."
In the light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Industrial Tribunal does not suffers from any patent illegality nor any jurisdictional error has been committed by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the admission is declined.
(S. C. SHARMA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
KR
Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor
Date: 2019.07.02 16:01:17 +05'30'