IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1590, 1591, 1592 and 1594 of 2002 Between: Rayalaseema Concrete Sleepers (Pvt) Ltd., Secunderabad Rep.by its Vice President, Bharat J.Karandikar ..... PETITIONER (Petitioner in all these writ petitions) AND Authority under Payment of Wages Act-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur and another .....RESPONDENTS (Respondents in all these writ petitions) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1590, 1591, 1592 and 1594 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: Heard both the counsel. 2. Petitioner is the manufacturer of concrete railway sleepers and the Indian Railways is its customer. The manufacturing site of the petitioner is at Guntakal and from there the petitioner used to supply the sleepers to the railways. It is stated that as the Railways have reduced the requirement of the sleepers, the petitioner suffered shortage of orders. The petitioner applied for lay-off and the same was permitted by the Government. Several workmen have left the service due to the bad financial position of the petitioner company. 3. The 2nd respondent in all the writ petitions are the workers of the petitioner company. In fact, they have filed Payment of Wages cases on the file of the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for payment of bonus from November 1998 to October 1999. The workers have also claimed compensation ten times to the claim. The 1st respondent held that the 2nd respondent workmen are entitled for the claim and ordered for the payment of bonus, and also awarded two times compensation for the delay in payment of bonus, vide the impugned orders dated 22.01.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the impugned orders. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the workers filed the applications under Sec.15 of the Act seeking payment of bonus for the year 1998-99 before the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent was not competent to adjudicate the dispute relating to delayed wages and deduction from wages under Sec.15 of the Act and he has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to payment of bonus. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 defines the word “Wages” under Sec.2(vi) which excludes all types of bonus from its purview. It is also contended that Sec.22 of the Payment of the Bonus Act provides remedy by way of raising a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal with reference to the bonus claims and even otherwise the said claims can be maintained under Sec.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the authority under Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 5. The workmen filed counters stating that every workman is entitled for payment of bonus for the year 1998-99 of more than Rs.5,000/- and odd and as the bonus was not paid, the workmen have filed the Payment of Wages Cases before the 1st respondent. It is stated that the petitioner/management has not sustained any financial loss and the petitioner/management was already having sufficient bulk orders from Indian Railways. The 1st respondent was having jurisdiction to entertain their claim applications under Sec.15 of the Act as there is no dispute to resolve the same by the Labour Court under Sec.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further stated that the claim of the workmen falls under the purview of Payment of Wages Act. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and the impugned orders. It is not in dispute that there was some agreement dated 14.04.2000 which was marked as Ex.A1 in the impugned order. It is stated that as per the agreement dated 14.04.2000, the bonus was not paid despite of requests made by the workmen, and therefore, they have filed the said Payment of Wages Cases before the 1st respondent. In fact, though notices were served on the petitioner directing him to file counters, he has neither appeared before the 1st respondent nor filed any counters and therefore, the petitioner was set ex parte and an ex parte order was passed on 29.06.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the said ex parte order on 03.07.2000 under Or.9 Rule-13 CPC and the same was allowed on condition of the petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the amount. Accordingly, the petitioner/management deposited the 1/3rd amount and filed counters in all cases and participated in the trial. On 13.10.2000 the workman in each case was examined as PW 1 and marked the agreement dated 14.04.2000 as Ex.A1. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the petitioner/management. 7. Based on the oral evidence and the material available on record, and after hearing both the parties, the 1st respondent held that the claim of the workmen was proved and they are entitled for payment of bonus and compensation for delayed payment, and accordingly, the workmen are awarded the bonus and two times compensation by the impugned orders dated 22.01.2001. 8. The petitioner/management has not filed the copies of the Payment of Wages Act, the counter and Ex.A1 agreement in these writ petitions. Nowhere in the writ affidavits had the petitioner denied the existence of Ex.A1 agreement. These writ petitions are filed questioning the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent alone, contending that payment of wages do not come within the definition of Sec.2(vi) and Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 9. Under Sec.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 an application can be filed, if any wages of the workmen or employed person are deducted or delayed. But in the instant case, it is not the case of the payment of wages but only payment of bonus. It is further stated that under Sec.15(3) of the Act any wages payable to the workmen are illegally deducted or delayed, such amount can be directed to be paid together with compensation not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding three thousand rupees but not less than one thousand five hundred rupees in the latter. It is stated that in the instant case, it is the case of the delayed payment of bonus alone, but not the deductions of the bonus amount and therefore, paying the compensation double the claim of bonus is illegal. It is stated that no doubt under Sec.17 of the Act the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the orders of the 1st respondent before the Court of Small Causes, but it is stated that in the instant case as the impugned orders itself are without jurisdiction, these writ petitions have been filed. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no dispute with regard to Ex.A1 agreement dated 14.04.2000 entered into between the petitioner/management and the workmen. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen have an effective alternative remedy under Sec.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, it is stated that there is no dispute with regard to payment of amount under Ex.A1 agreement dated 14.04.2000 and therefore the petitioners have rightly approached the 1st respondent under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act. With regard to the other contentions of the petitioner that the bonus can be recovered in terms of the provisions of Sec.21 of the Payment of Bonus Act, it is submitted that if there is no remedy under Sec.21 of the Payment of Bonus Act, it is open for the workmen to approach the 1st respondent. It is further stated that under Sec.2(vi)(c) of the Act the bonus does not include the wages. 11. I have perused the definitions made under Sec.2 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. “Wages” is defined under Sec.2(vi) of the Act. Under Sec.2(vi)(c) of the Act any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment would be called as bonus or by any other name. In the instant case payment of bonus was covered by Ex.A1 agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the term of bonus does not come within the meaning of “Wages” under Sec.2(vi)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/management are without any basis and are untenable. The petitioner has not disputed the existence of Ex.A1 agreement and the entitlement of workmen for the payment of bonus. The respondents/workmen rightly filed the Payment of Wages Cases for the payment of bonus. 12. In so far as awarding compensation for the delayed payment of bonus is concerned, Sec.15(3) clearly stipulates the payment of compensation upto Rs.3,000/- not less than Rs.1,500/- for the delayed payment of wages. In the instant case, the 1st respondent awarded compensation double the claim amount. I am of the opinion that awarding of compensation double the claim amount is excessive to some extent. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the compensation amount awarded by the 1st respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to impose the compensation of an amount of Rs.2,000/- only in respect of each and every claimant on the delayed payment of bonus. 13. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed in part, directing the petitioner to pay compensation @ Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in addition to the awarded claim amount to each and every workman. The amount already deposited by the petitioner while setting aside the ex parte order may be deducted from the awarded amount. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.09.2010 Dsr