Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner, Union, challenges the arbitration award on the ground that the decision rendered by the arbitrator on the two main questions that were referred to him for adjudication is erroneous and illegal.

3. The question that was referred to the arbitration of Mr. V. U. Joseph related to the claim of the piece-rated workers for additional bonus for the year ending 31-12-1959 to be paid on the total wages that they were getting at the material time. The claim also related to bonus for the same period regarding the temporary workers. The actual question that was referred for the opinion of the arbitrator and as extracted in the arbitration award is as follows -:

"The management's contention that the workers were not entitled to any additional bonus for the year ending 31-12-1959 according to the existing practice followed by the management hitherto as against the worker's contention that the existing practice is not correct and that the piece-rated and temporary workers were also entitled to the same rate of bonus as the permanent time-rated workers."

4. I will have to consider later the merits of the attack levelled against this award. But at this stage, it is enough to note that both the claims that were urged before the arbitrator, on behalf of the Union were negatived. The opinion of the arbitrator ultimately is that the existing practice adopted by the management of paying bonus based on basic wages is perfectly correct and that the temporary workers are not entitled to any bonus as claimed by them. That means, on the questions which were referred for adjudication by the arbitrator concerned, the opinion given by the arbitrator is against the union.

51. I am not impressed with this contention. I find that the arbitrator has gone into this matter and has come to the conclusion that the present system of paying bonus uniformly to all the workers on the basis of the basic wages is perfectly correct and it requires no alteration. I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel that any interference is called for so far as this aspect is concerned.

52. The second question that was referred for decision by the arbitrator was regarding the claim made by temporary workers for payment of bonus. So far as that is concerned, here again, the arbitrator has taken note of the fact that this management, at any rate, was giving bonus to such of these temporary workers who had put in 240 days of work and who were actually taken in their permanent employ. The arbitrator has also further noted that so far as temporary workers are concerned, though they are not entitled to any bonus in law, nevertheless this management has been making an ex gratia payment varying from Rs. 20 to Rs. 50 to temporary workers also at the time when bonus was being declared. The arbitrator has also held that temporary workers are free to absent themselves as they like and the management has no control whatsoever over these workers and it would be absolutely unjust and hard to impose a liability, as claimed by the Union, on the management and more especially when the management was giving them every consideration by making ex gratia payment.