IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25544 of 2007 Between: The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., West Godavari District, at Eluru, Rep by its General Manager Sri C. Mallikarjuna Rao. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Officer, Eluru and Inspector Under Payment of Wages Act, Eluru, 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Authority, Under Payment of Wages Act Eluru, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records in IA No. 1 of 2007 in P.W Case No. 3 of 2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 01-11-2007 and consequently declare that the 2nd respondent is not competent to adjudicate P.W Case No. 3 of 2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: G.P. for Labour Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mrs. N.V.V.S. Bhavani The Court made the following: Order: Petitioner, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., West Godavari, has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 01-11-2007, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum- Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Eluru, the second respondent herein, in I.A.No.1 of 2007 in P.W. Case No.3 of 2007. 2. The first respondent, Labour Officer, Eluru, filed P.W. Case No.3 of 2007 before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, under Sections 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking direction for payment of Rs.3,18,89,365.35 towards bonus for the years 1993-94 to 2005-06, to the employees of the petitioner-bank, as detailed in the list appended thereto. When the matter was under enquiry, petitioner-bank filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2007 questioning the very maintainability of the main case. 3. The case of the petitioner-bank is that as much as the claim is with regard to bonus, no application lies under Section 15(3) of the Act. In support of its case, petitioner-bank relied upon the orders passed by the Government, in exercise of powers under Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, exempting it from paying bonus. However, the second respondent rejected the said application by the impugned order stating that under Section 2 (vi) (c) of the Act, any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment can be termed as a ‘wage’ and thus wages include bonus. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondents 1 and 2 and also learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-bank that the application claiming arrears on account of bonus is belated and is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that in view of the exemption granted by the Government, exempting the petitioner-bank from paying bonus to its employees, the very application is not maintainable. 6. However, the said submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 2 (vi) (c) of the Act defines wage as “any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name)”. Hence, it cannot be said that the application filed by the first respondent in P.W. Case No.3 of 2007 is not maintainable on that ground. The other ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner-bank with regard to limitation can very well be raised before the authority, resisting the claim for payment of bonus, however, it cannot be said that the very application is not maintainable. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed keeping open to the petitioner-bank to raise its objections resisting the claim with regard to payment of bonus in P.W. Case No.3 of 2007 before the second respondent. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 28, 2008 MRR