IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2129 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.24403/2001 Dated 23/06/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE INSTRUMENTATION EMPLOYEES UNION (I.N.T.U.C.), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 ------------------------------------------- 1. THE INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD. 2. THE INSTRUMENTATION WORKERS UNION (C.I.T.U), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2336 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. Nos. 2129 & 2336 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment of the learned single Judge reversing the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the employees of the company are entitled to bonus and productivity linked reward for the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1996-97 by treating the Palakkad unit as a separate industrial establishment. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants in both the cases and senior counsel Sri. U.K. Ramakrishnan appearing for 1st respondent. 2. The main contention of the appellant is that Palakkad unit was treated as a separate industrial establishment for payment of bonus for the year 1975-76 under orders of this Court in O.P.No. 3302 of 1988. According to the appellants, so long as the judgment stands the management is bound by the same and they cannot raise contention to the contrary. However, senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the stand approved by this Court in the judgment in the 2 O.P. was taken by the company only for certain benefits available to a unit under the Infancy Protection Scheme. However, according to him from from 1977-78 onwards management and the unions agreed to treat all the four units of the company together as a single establishment for the purpose of payment of bonus for the year 1977- 78 onwards. Even though management produced before the Industrial Tribunal Exts. P1 to P9 circulars declaring bonus for the company as a whole commencing from 1977-78 onwards, the Tribunal still declined to accept the same for the reason that the same circulars were issued during the pendency of the O.P. before this Court and the management has not brought to the notice of this Court those circulars. Before the learned single Judge and even before us, the appellants are pressing for acceptance of the same argument which found acceptability with the Industrial Tribunal. We do not think the management which takes the stand that one unit should be treated as a separate industrial establishment for the purpose of payment of bonus for one year, is bound by the same for all the years to come. If the management with the acceptance of unions have decided to give bonus based on the profit of all the units and by treating the company as a whole, then unions 3 cannot take a stand contrary to it based on the judgment of this Court for a year prior to the agreement. Even though appellants contended that circulars produced are not sufficient proof of payment of bonus for the company as a whole, we are unable to accept this contention because declaration of bonus is accepted and if the unions have a case that bonus was given unitwise then they should have produced evidence for the same. The circulars produced are nothing but declaration of bonus every year based on the profit and loss account of the company as a whole. Therefore the learned single Judge rightly reversed the award of the Industrial Tribunal on this issue. 3. So far as the claim for productivity linked reward based on Ext.P22 is concerned, it is seen that reward scheme was only for three years from with effect from 1.4.1990. Even though the management requested the Central Government to extend the benefit to employees, the Government did not approve it probably as a matter of policy. In any case, when the benefit is only for particular duration, the same does not constitute as a condition of service found by the Industrial Tribunal in the award. Even though appellants have referred to the benefit received by them for 1997-98 and 1998-99, it is seen that what 4 was given to them for those years was incentive bonus based on M$ and M24 and not productivity linked reward originally granted under Ext.P22 for three years. We therefore confirm the judgment of the learned single Judge that employees are not entitled to productivity linked reward for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. 4. We have also to take into account that the company is still under BIFR and we are sure if the untenable claims of the employees are loaded to the liability of the company, BIFR may probably advise liquidation of the company which should be prevented in the interests of the employees as well. As and when the company is out of BIFR and makes profit, it will be open to the employees to put forward reasonable claims of incentive bonus based on production in the future. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 5