TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a settlement with the workers employed in their different branches, the appellant, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as the company) paid to these workers an amount equivalent to 6 per cent of their total earnings for the financial year ending 31 July 1971, in addition to bonus at 4 per cent of the annual earnings. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum of settlement reads: It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 per cent of their total earning for the year 1970-71. The dispute arising on this demand by the head office employees was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay. The Tribunal agreeing with the contention of the workers that what was paid to the employees at the branch offices as ex-gratia amount, was in fact nothing but additional bonus for the year 1970-71 he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the memorandum of settlement between the company and the Federation representing the workers at the branches that what was being paid to them was an ex-gratia relief, the tribunal was wrong in holding that the amount paid was an additional bonus It was submitted that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in extending the benefit under the settlement to the workmen at the head office who were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears that the company had spent about ₹ 20 lakhs in giving this additional relief to the workers at the branches numbering about 13,000. The workmen at the head-office are much fewer in number and the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this Court on their behalf states that extending the benefit to them would cost the company only ₹ 1 lakh more. The High Court found the extension of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
