C.W.P. No.17126 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17126 of 1989 Date of Decision. 01.06.2011 S.P. Bajaj and others ......Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana through the Secretary, Department of Finance, Haryana Government at Chandigarh and another .....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.2747 of 1992 Haryana Financial Corporation Employees Welfare Association (Regd.) under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its President Shri K.Sai Baba, resident of House No.1595, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh ......Petitioner Versus The Haryana Financial Corporation, through its Managing Director, SCO No.17 to 19, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. .....Respondent Present: Mr. Prem Nath Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The twin writ petitions are connected and are being disposed of together. In C.W.P. No.17126 of 1989, the petitioners No.1 to 24 seek for quashing the resolution passed through Annexure P-16 and Annexure P-21 and in C.W.P. No.2747 of 1992, the petitioner-Union seeks for quashing the resolution passed through Annexure P-6, whereby C.W.P. No.17126 of 1989 -2- Good Performance Reward, which was paid to the employees of the Haryana State Financial Corporation at three months salary was wrongly reduced to two months salary and still later by resolution reduced to 20% of the salary. 2. The objection of the petitioners is not that the Good Performance Reward itself has been withdrawn but the quantum of the Good Performance Reward has been reduced from what was originally three months salary to two months salary and still later to 20%. According to him, Good Performance Allowance has become customary and any reduction of the same without any notice to the petitioners was unjust and untenable. 3. Learned counsel refers me to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Corut in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha Vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others 1976(II) LLJ 186 that held that customary bonus or claims based on conditions of service could be claimed as a matter of right. I cannot understand how this judgment has any application, for the Hon'ble Supreme Court was making this observation with reference to the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act and that bonus itself has several connotations, for some could be based on profits, others could be not merely on profit in business but way of bonus, which was in some way customary or provided for the service conditions. Withdrawal of any such type of bonus was found to be unjustified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have already pointed out the issue in this case is not that there was withdrawal of benefit. The issue is that the quantum must be retained in the same manner and any alteration could not have been done. The learned counsel also refers to a Division Bench ruling in C.W.P. No.17126 of 1989 -3- C.W.P. No.669 of 1998. This judgment was also in the context of withdrawl of 20% emoluments to employees of the Rajasthan Finance Corporation. A withdrawal of benefit must be taken as distinguished from scaling down the amount as per the policy decision taken by the Corporation. A Good Performance Reward in an organization where there has been repeatedly good performance in terms of turn over and profits may entitle workmen to claim that benefit as a measure of a settled state of affairs but it will be wrong of a party to assume that the same rate shall be paid at all times. 4. Learned counsel states that in any event the lower amount as allowance constituted a change to condition of service and such a change effected without show cause notice shall be violative of principle of natural justice in the same way as Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act contemplates. A parity to Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act will have no meaning for amongst the petitioners, several persons are officers to whom the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act itself will not apply. I cannot also see this as a term of condition of service. If such an assumption must be made, it shall extend only to the character of allowance as surely guaranteed but not the quantum itself. In this case, the quantum has varied through resolutions but the component of the Good Performance Reward itself has not been denied. 5. I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 01, 2011 Pankaj*