Remanded

Pandaloor Plantations Pvt.Ltd v. Secy.Plantation Labour Union(Citu)

Kerala HC23 May 2016OP/23534/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an Industrial Tribunal award regarding bonus quantum for plantation workers, holding the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it considered clubbing four separate companies without a specific reference, and there was no basis for granting maximum bonus under Section 11.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Tribunal at Exhibit P8 is set aside and the Original Petition is allowed.

Pandaloor Plantations Pvt.Ltd Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP.No.23534 of 2002 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

M/S.PANDALOOR PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., PANDALLUR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ZACHARIAH KURIAN.

¶8

M/S.BADRA ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ZACHARIAH KURIAN.

¶9

M/S.GOKUL RUBBER & TEA PLANTATIONS LTD., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ZACHARIAH KURIAN

¶10

M/S.BALANOOR PLANTATIONS & INDUSTRIES LTD., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE, CORPORATE AFFAIRS, ZACHARIAH KURIAN.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (SR.)

¶12

SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶14

THE SECRETARY, PLANTATION LABOUR UNION (CITU), PERINTHALAMANNA, MALAPPURAM.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK SWATHANDRA THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION (INTUC),

¶16

PERINTHALMANNA.

¶17

THE SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA SWATANTHRA THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION (STU), PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.

¶18

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶20

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

O.P.NO.23534 OF 2002-B

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶24

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DT.12.1.99 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DT.22.7.99 OF UNION NO.1.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DT.7.10.99 OF UNION NO.2 AND 3.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.5.1.2000 OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION DT.9.2.2000 OF UNION NO.1.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT ON 10.5.2000.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT ON 9.8.2000.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT.30.7.2001 IN I.D.NO.55/99.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET P&L ACCOUNT, ALLOCABLE SURPLUS STATEMENT AND SET-ON AND SET-OFF STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94 AND 94-95 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET P&L ACCOUNT, ALLOCABLE SURPLUS STATEMENT AND SET-ON AND SET-OFF STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94 AND 94-95 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET P&L ACCOUNT, ALLOCABLE SURPLUS STATEMENT AND SET-ON AND SET-OFF STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94 AND 94-95 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET P&L ACCOUNT, ALLOCABLE SURPLUS STATEMENT AND SET-ON AND SET-OFF STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94 AND 94-95 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P13	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN TO MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4.
EXT.P14	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.8.6.2000 OF THE UNION.
EXT.P15	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DT.9.8.2000 OF PETITIONER.
EXT.P16	TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DT.17.4.1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVT.

¶25

¶26

O.P.NO.23534 OF 2002-B

¶27

EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE ON 7.5.99 IN I.D.NO.22/99.

¶28

EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF B.R. DT.29.4.70 OF 4TH PETITIONER DT.5.9.96.

¶29

EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF B.R. DT.2.7.70 OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF B.R. DT.31.12.69 OF 3RD PETITIONER.

¶31

EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.23.3.2001 OF UNION NO.1.

¶32

EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DT.JUNE 2001 OF MANAGEMENT.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶34

---------------------------------------NIL.

¶35

vku/[ true copy ]

¶36

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶37

-------------------------------------O.P.No.23534 of 2002-B

¶38

¶39

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The challenge made is to the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad [for brevity “the Tribunal”], at Exhibit P8. The issue dealt with is, the quantum of bonus to be paid to the workers for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, as is seen from Exhibit P1.

¶42

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶43

and also the 1^st respondent-Union.

¶44

The petitioners are four separate Companies,

¶45

who are sought to be treated as one legal entity and on that basis, the workmen of the respondent-Unions sought for reference of the issue of bonus payable for the subject years, for adjudication. The reference order is produced at Exhibit P1 and the only question referred is:

¶46

“The quantum of Bonus to be paid to the workers for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95”.

¶47

O.P.No.23534 of 2002

¶48

¶49

Admittedly, the petitioner-Companies are

¶50

registered Companies and are separate legal entities. The respondent-Union claims that the workers were transferable and that all the four Companies were managed by one group, called “Young India Group”. The essential contention raised by the petitioner is that the Tribunal had first considered the issue as to whether the four estates can be treated as a single estate for the purpose of bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 [for brevity “Bonus Act”]; which is beyond the powers of the Tribunal, for not being a question referred to the Tribunal. This Court is of the opinion that the said short ground has to be accepted at the outset.

¶51

The question referred as indicated earlier was

¶52

only regarding bonus payable to the workers for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The issue with respect to four different Companies were referred by one single reference order. The issue arose in the plantation industry where the workers have a common union for the area in which the estates are situated, and not with reference to each of the Companies. Considering the fact that the Unions were identical, definitely the Tribunal

¶53

O.P.No.23534 of 2002 - 3 -

¶54

could have directed evidence to be adduced with respect to the four separate Companies and then considered the issue of the set of employees of each Companies. Such an exercise in the matter of industrial adjudication would have been permissible, considering the intend of expeditious disposal of such issues raised, without the technical rigmarole, based on which a separate forum was provided by statute.

¶55

However, here the Tribunal first raised a point as

¶56

to whether the four estates can be treated as a single estate, which is beyond the power conferred by the order of reference. Definitely the workmen could have asked for such a question to be referred and if the appropriate Government refers that question, the Tribunal would have been conferred with such jurisdiction. In the present case, no such question was referred and the order of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction.

¶57

The Tribunal found that the petitioners were separate Companies incorporated under the Companies Act and from Exhibits W1 to W8 found that the four estates were managed by “Young India Group”. It is not clear as to what is the legal status of the said group. The said group has also not

¶58

O.P.No.23534 of 2002

¶59

¶60

been made a party in the conciliation proceedings or in the complaint filed before the appropriate Government. The finding that the workers were transferable within the four estates was merely on the oral evidence of the three witnesses on the side of the workmen-Union, which was refuted by the Management itself. When the workmen-claimants contend that the workers of the four estates were transferable, it has to be established by sufficient evidence. The finding that the four estates were one legal entity was also on the ground that the Power of Attorney who appeared for the four separate Companies were one and the same person. During the course of the proceedings, the workmen also raised a contention that certain other estates owned by the Company were also liable to be clubbed as an individual legal entity coming under the Young India Group, which again was beyond the scope of the reference order.

¶61

The specific contention of the Management,

¶62

going by the balance sheet, was that, considering the losses caused in the subject years the Management had disbursed the statutory bonus of 8.33% for the year 1993-94 and also

¶63

O.P.No.23534 of 2002

¶64

¶65

granted 4% additional bonus for the year 1994-95. The Tribunal did not find that the individual estates or they together earned profits in the relevant years and found that in the earlier years the workmen were paid 20% bonus. The mere fact that the workmen were paid 20% bonus in a particular year cannot lead to any absolute right being conferred on them to be paid the bonus at the very same rate in all the ensuing years. The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 does not contemplate such a situation and only mandates that irrespective of any profit earned or loss occasioned, the workmen should be paid minimum bonus at the rate of 8.33%, as per Section 10 . There is no dispute as to the compliance of such minimum prescription.

¶66

Maximum bonus as provided in the Act is 20% by virtue of section 11; which has been granted by the Tribunal. Section 11 contemplates a situation where the allocable surplus, as defined under Section 2(4), exceeds the amount of minimum bonus payable under section 10, in which event the management is bound to pay such amount of bonus to the workmen, in proportion to the salary or wage earned in the

¶67

O.P.No.23534 of 2002 - 6 -

¶68

accounting year, subject to a maximum of 20%. The Tribunal has not considered the issue on the basis of the statute which entitles the workmen to bonus and has misdirected itself in considering an issue totally alien to the order of reference and framing questions by itself. An order of remand is unnecessary at this distance of time and also considering the fact that the balance sheet produced by the individual companies showed a loss and there is no warrant for application of Section 11. Section 10 of the Act having been complied with no issue arises for consideration

¶69

For all the above reasons, the award of the Tribunal at Exhibit P8 is found to be bad. Exhibit P8 is set aside. Original Petition allowed. No costs.

¶70

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶71

vku/-

¶72

[ true copy ]

Pandaloor Plantations Pvt.Ltd v. Secy.Plantation Labour Union(Citu)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandaloor Plantations Pvt.Ltd v. Secy.Plantation Labour Union(Citu)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Kumari Vs Patil Ajit Bhagawatrao

Yr.Haridasan Vs Uty. of Calicut

International Educational Trust Vs District Collector, Ekm

P.Harilal Vs M.G.University

Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

S.Valsala Vs Idukki District Panchayath