A.K. Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated January 14, 1994 passed by respondent No.2, the Presiding Officer-cum-Authority, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in P. W. Case 16 of 1987 directing the petitioner - Company to make payment of bonus to its 25 Supervisors.
2. Those supervisors have neither made complaints to any one about their claim of bonus nor were they present at any stage of the proceeding before the Presiding Officer-cum-Authority. Labour Court, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 2).
3. Brief facts of the case may be outlined hereunder:
In the course of inspection of Noamundi Iron Mines of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the TISCO) one Sri A.N. Malhotra, Asistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chaibasa allegedly directed that the petitioner Company had not paid Bonus to its 25 Supervisors amounting to Rs. 97,022.00 for the accounting year 1985-86 within the specified limit and as such the amount remained due. On the basis of the said inspection a show cause notice was served on the petitioner Company and the same was replied to by the petitioner Company on April 2, 1989. As the same was not found satisfactory, a claim petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Wages Act) was filed on November 23, 1986 by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). Chaibasa against Noamundi Iron Mines of the petitioner Company.
4. The case of the petitioner Company, as made out in the writ petition, is that under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bonus Act') all the employees of the petitioner Company are not entitled to claim bonus under the said Bonus Act. Only those employees who answer the description of the 'employee' as defined under Section 2(13) of the said Bonus Act, can claim bonus. The said definition of the word 'employee' under Section 2(13) of the Bonus Act as it stood prior to the Payment of Bonus (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 is set out below:
'Employee' means any person (other than an apprentice employed on a salary or wage not exceeding Rs. 1600/- per mensem in any industry to do, any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical of clerical work for hire or reward, where the terms of employment be express or implied.'
5. It has further been stated by the petitioner Company that by a amendment of the said definition of the word 'employee' by Payment of Bonus (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 which was brought into force with effect from April 1, 1985 the definition was changed to the extent that the figure of Rs. 1600/- was replaced by Rs. 2500/- and the changed definition is as follows:
''employee' means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on a salary or wage not exceeding two thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied.'
6. The further case of the petitioner Company is that in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Bonus Act, an agreement, quite some time back, was entered into between the Company and its employees whereby the Company agreed to pay bonus under the said agreement. Such bonus is linked with production and productivity. The said scheme known as Superannuation scheme was introduced by the said Company for its Supervisors and Officers, who fall outside the purview of the said Bonus Act. And the employees in whose favour the aforesaid complaint had been lodged are all outside the purview of the said Bonus Act and under the said scheme a sum equivalent to two months' salary (Basic Plus dearness allowance) is transferred to the Superannuation fund of such Supervisors under the said Scheme in lieu of Bonus prior to the aforesaid Second Amendment Ordinance, 1985. The Officers getting the basic salary of Rs. 1600/-and above were given option to become members of the said Superannuation scheme and it is further contended, which has not been disputed at any stage by the respondents that the Supervisors on whose behalf the said complaint has been filed, have all opted to become members of the said scheme. As such on April 1, 1985 when the said Amendment came into operation, the Supervisors concerned with the said complaint were members of the said Superannuation scheme. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner Company that once such Supervisors became members of the said Superannuation scheme by exercising their option, they cannot come out from the said scheme during the tenure of their services. It is also asserted by the petitioner that the benefits available to the Supervisors under the Superannuation, scheme is better than the amount of bonus which is available to such employees under the said Bonus Act. This has also not been denied by the respondents at all.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Company further submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 1(6) of the Wages Act, the authority passing the impugned order has no jurisdiction to entertain and pass any order under Section 15 of the Wages Act. The provisions of Section 1(6) of the Wages Act is set out below:
'Nothing in this Act shall apply to wages payable in respect of a wage-period which, over such wage-period average one thousand six hundred rupees a month or more.'
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Company further contended that the bonus which is paid to the Supervisors under the Superannuation scheme
cannot be called wages and relied on the definition of the word 'wages' given under Section 2(vi) of the Wages Act which runs as follows:
'wages' means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied were, fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes.
(a) any remuneration payable under any reward or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;
(b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period;
(c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name);
(d) any sum which reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made;
(e) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme framed under any law for the time being in force;
but does not include :-
(1) any bonus whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise, which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or whether is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of Court;
(2) the value of any house-accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of the State Government;
(3) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued therein;
(4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;
(5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entiled on him by the nature of his employment; or
(6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in case other than those specified in Sub-clause (d).
9. From a perusal of the said definition of wages, it is clear that the said definition as given under the Wages Act is very wide and comprehensive and also takes within its fold the claim of bonus under the Bonus Act. The bonus which is paid to the concerned employee is nothing but a part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment. Therefore, by whatever name it may be called, it comes within the definition of wages. Reliance in this connection is placed on a Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Junior Labour Inspector (Central), Jabalpur etc. v. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act reported in (1976-I-LLJ-511). In paragraph 12 of the report, it has been held that bonus is included within the definition of wages under Section 2(vi) of the Wages Act.
10. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary is rejected..
11. At this stage a question of greater import demands the consideration of the Court, namely whether wages of all kinds are recoverable under the provisions of the Wages Act. This question can be considered from different angles in the facts of the present case.
12. First of all the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 of the Wages Act as it appears from a perusal of the Section itself, is summary in nature. Such a summary jurisdiction has been designedly conferred on the Authority under Section 15 of the Wages Act for speedy disposal of the employee's claim and to ensure prompt payment. The nature of the jurisdiction which the Authority under Section 15 of the Wages Act can exercise has been sufficiently summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjan v. Suraj Mal Mehta, Director, The Barnagar Electric Supply and Industrial Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in(1969-I-LLJ-762). The following extracts from paragraph 8 of the report and paragraph 10 are set out below:
'8. It is explicit from the terms of Section 15(2) that the Authority appointed under Subsection (1) has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two clauses of cases, namely, of deduction and fines nor authorised under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section 5. This is clear from the opening words of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, namely, 'where contrary to the provisions of this Act' any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed
xxxx xxxx xxxx
'10. It is true, as stated above, that the Authority has the jurisdiction to any matters which are incidental to the claim in question. Indeed 15(1) itself provided that the Authority has the power to determine all matters incidental to the claim arising from deductions from or delay in payment of wages. It is also true that while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to claim or not care should be taken neither to unduly expand nor curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority. But is has at the same time to be kept in mind that the jurisdiction underSection 15 isaspecial jurisdiction.'
13. In the case of D.P. Kelkar, Amalner v. Ambades Kashav Bajaj and Ors., reported in 1971 Labour and Industrial Cases page 429 the Division Bench of Bombay High Court relying on the said decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Payment of Wages Inspector (supra) has held at page 436 of the report as follows :
'The Payment of Wages Authority has no doubt to give an opportunity to the employer of being heard but there is nothing like a formal hearing nor has evidence to be recorded in the manner in which it is recorded in a Civil Court nor is the other procedure to be followed as is normally followed in a Civil Court. In most of the cases which come before the Payment of Wages Authority, however, such a summary procedure would be suitable and expedient having regard to the purpose and object of the Act. But where a dispute arises and controversial and complicated question of law are raised, involving a prolonged inquiry as in the present case it is clear that it was not intended by the Payment of Wages Act that such question should also continue to be tried by the Payment of Wages A uthority.
14. Here the question involved is whether as a result of Superannuation scheme to which the concerned employees voluntarily opted. The option being irrevocable, during the tenure of service, the said employees are still entitled to receive bonus under the Bonus Act. The said question must be resolved after having due regard to the provisions of Section 31A of the Bonus Act.
15. This is certainly a complicated question of fact and law and cannot be decided by the said Authority under its summary jurisdiction under Section 15A of the Payment of Wages Act.
16. Another aspect of the matter is whether such dispute for payment of bonus ought to be decided at all under the provisions of the Bonus Act in view of the detailed provision in the Bonus Act for resolution of such dispute.
17. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in the case of D.P. Kelkar (supra) wherein it has been held that any dispute relating to payment of bonus between the employer and employee must be decided in accordance with the provisions contained under the said Payment of Bonus Act and the same cannot be decided under the Wages Act as has been done in this case. In paragraph 27 at pages 438 and 439 of the said judgment, the learned Judges have been pleased to hold as follows :
'27. The Payment of Bonus Act is a Special Act dealing with a special subject.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
The Act, therefore, makes provision for the first time for an extraordinary right which was not within the contemplation of the Industrial Law before and was passed with the sole object of conferring only that right upon the employee and providing for it. When such a special statute containing special provisions also creates a special forum for the trail of disputes under the Act, it is settled law that any dispute arising under that Act must go before the special Tribunal created under the Act. We hold for these reasons that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction in the present case to try the dispute raised in these cases.'
18. Therefore, the answer to the basic question posed earlier is clear that all types of claim for. wages cannot be decided under the provisions of the Wages Act. Reliance in this context can be placed on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Mandegam Radhakrishna Reddy v. Sri Bharathi Velu Bus Service and Ors. reported in AIR 1936 Andhra Pradesh page 102. At page 116 of the report it has held as follows :
'It is thus manifest that every claim for wages is not entertainable under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. So it is evident from the various provisions incorporated in the Act that it is not intended to be a self contained Code dealing with all matters relating to payment of wages. '
19. The attention of the Court was also drawn 'to another judgment in the case of Hari Fertilizers v. IV Additional District Judge reported in 1995 Factory Law Reports page 866. There also it has been stated that the claim of bonus should be decided in accordance with the provisions of Bonus Act and not under the Authority of the Wages Act. It was, therefore, held in that decision that the Claims Authority and the appellate authority under the said Wages Act have no jurisdiction to issue direction in respect of claims for bonus.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents has only raised the question of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner Company against the impugned order. It is true that in the impugned order there is a provision for appeal under Section 17 of the Wages Act. But, where the initial authority acts without jurisdiction, the insistence by Court on exhaustion of the appellate forum would be nothing better than an insistence on an empty ritual.
21. Therefore, in the facts of this case the availability of a so called statutory remedy cannot be a bar for this Court, to entertain this writ petition. The said objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is thus overruled.
22. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated January 14, 1994 passed by the Authority under the Wages Act is wholly without jurisdiction and the said order at Annexure-4 to this writ petition is thus set aside and quashed.
23. In passing this order the Court has also taken into consideration the fact none of the concerned Supervisors has made any grievance about non-payment of alleged bonus which has been directed to be paid under the impugned order.
24. At the same time this Court hastens to add that it does not as obviously it cannot, in the narrow compass of this writ petition, make any determination on the justifiability of such a claim for payment of Bonus in the event of such a claim being ever raised in future before the appropriate forum.
25. This writ petition is thus allowed the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to cost.