IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3273 of 1984 (O&M) Date of decision:03.10.2011 The Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.3990 of 1984 (O&M) Malkiat Singh son of Shri Joginder Singh, Village Uttal, Post Office Jadla, Tehsil Nawanshehar, District Jullundur, and others. ...Petitioners versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. H.P.S. Kochar and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocates, for the petitioner in CWP No.3273 of 1984 and for respondent No.2 in CWP No.3990 of 1984. None for the petitioners in CWP No.3990 of 1984 and for respondents in CWP No.3273 of 1984 ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) I. Civil Writ Petition No.3273 of 1984 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court, who while deciding the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act interpreted the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP between the same parties that the Management shall pay 50% of back wages with other benefits as including the benefit Civil Writ Petition No.3273 of 1984 (O&M) - 2 - of bonus also. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Management would contend that an adjudication relating to the entitlement of bonus cannot be done under Section 33-C (2) at all in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.P. State Electricity Board and another and Ranjeet Singh and others-2008-II-LLJ 629, where the Court held that the jurisdiction of the a Labour Court under the Payment of Bonus Act would be only matters specified in Second Schedule but bonus, however, appeared as item 5 in the Third Schedule. The counsel would, therefore, argue that the question of entitlement of bonus could not have been decided by the Labour Court. I find this issue as covered through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hold that the finding of the Labour Court that the workman was entitled also to bonus in the application under Section 33-C (2), is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 2. The writ petition is disposed of as above. II. CWP No.3990 of 1984 3. There is no representation for the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed for default for non-prosecution. 4. A copy of this order be placed on the file of CWP No.3990 of 1984. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 03.10.2011 sanjeev