Allowed

The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, v. The Ettikoppaka Sugar Factory Employees Union

Telangana HC5 Jun 2014WA/1787/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal against an order directing a Cooperative Sugar Factory to pay minimum bonus of 8.33% to union members. The court affirmed the direction for the 2012-13 financial year while leaving older claims open for parties to resolve.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd appellant to pay bonus at 8.33% to employees for FY 2012-13 within four weeks.

The Director of Sugar and Cane… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.1787 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed W.P. No.20909 of 2012 with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus declaring the letter Rc.No.25892/ 2011(bonus)/2010-11, dated 04.06.2012, issued by the 3^rd respondent herein, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act (for short ‘the Act’). The controversy was about the obligation of the 2^nd appellant – Cooperative Sugar Factory to pay the bonus to the members of the 1^st respondent Union for the financial years 2010-2011 onwards. Earlier to that, the respondents 1 and 2 approached this Court with a prayer to issue a direction to the appellants herein to pay bonus.

¶5

2. W.P. No.20909 of 2012 was disposed of on 03.01.2013 with a direction that the 2^nd appellant herein shall pay minimum bonus of 8.33% to the members of the 1^st respondent Union. It was also made clear that if the amount is not paid, steps for realization of the same can be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The 2^nd appellant was also accorded the liberty to work out its remedies. The said order is challenged in this writ appeal.

¶6

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

¶7

4. The learned single Judge made it abundantly clear that the claims as to payment of bonus needs to be worked out, only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. Though respondents 1 and 2 have been claiming bonus at 20% per annum, there was no response by the appellants. Taking into account, the obligation of an employer, covered by the Act, to pay minimum bonus of 8.33%, a direction as indicated above, was issued. We do not find any basis to interfere with the same. The

¶8

learned single Judge, did nothing more than, reiterate the requirement under law.

¶9

5. After writ appeal was admitted, a letter, dated 24.02.2013, was addressed by the 2^nd appellant to the 1^st appellant, duly furnishing the particulars of payment of bonus to its employees for the previous years, and the gist of the audit reports for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13. He expressed his inclination to pay bonus at 8.33%.

¶10

6. As the things stand now, we find that the 2^nd appellant factory earned Rs.243.07 lakhs of profit for the financial year 2012-2013. It may be true that for the preceding year, the loss was higher than that. In the totality of the circumstances, we dispose of the writ appeal directing that the 2^nd appellant shall pay the bonus at 8.33% to its employees for the financial year 2012-13 within a period of four (4) weeks from today. As regards the claim of bonus for the financial years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, it is left open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________

¶12

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶13

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J June 05, 2014. KTL

The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, v. The Ettikoppaka Sugar Factory Employees Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, v. The Ettikoppaka Sugar Factory Employees Union

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

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mr. Syed Meer (died)

Smt. v.Sarada Vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

The Apsrtc, Vs Sri v.Muralidhar

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Vs Sri Arun Prakash

K.Ravi Shankar S/o Ramulu, Vs The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Vs P. Uma Devi