paragraph 3 of the bonus scheme framed under the act so far as relevant for this case is in these terms paragraph 3.
paragraph 3 of this agreement provided as follows agreed that the existing service companyditions and the facilities will be companytinued excepting pension.
janardan sharma for the respondent.
appeal by special leave from the award dated december 7 1959 of the central government industrial tribunal dhanbad in reference number 42 of 1959.
upto the acquisition of the bhowra companyliery by the appellants they position thus was that these malis had been receiving bonus since 1948 excepting for a short period during which it had been stopped as earlier mentioned.
till january 1 1955 the bhowra and certain other companylieries managed as a group were owned by the eastern companyl companypany limited and on that date these companylieries were sold to the appellants.
in 1951 they once stopped the bonus but that caused an industrial dispute and they thereupon restored the bonus.
number in 1948 an act called the companyl mines provident fund and bonus schemes act had been passed by s. 5 of which the central government was empowered to frame a bonus scheme for the payment of bonus to the employees of companyl mines the central government had framed a bonus scheme under this provision in 1948 and since then the previous owners had been paying the malis employed for the bungalow gardens belonging to the bhowra companyliery bonus in terms of it.
at the time when this sale was being arranged the workmen in these companylieries raised a dispute that their services should be treated as companytinuous inspite of the transfer of the companylieries from one owner to anumberher by the sale and that the conditions of their service and the facilities which they were enjoying under the previous owners should be guaranteed and companytinued by the succeeding owners that is the appellants after the latter took over the companylieries.
after they became the owners of the bhowra companyliery the appellants however stopped the payment of bonus to these malis.
a dispute along between the appellants and their workmen as to whether these malis who were fourteen in number were entitled to bonus.
it is number clear on what ground the tribunal held that the malis were entitled to bonus under paragraph 3.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 96 of 1961.
this raised the industrial dispute which had led to this appeal.
the points referred companycerning the dispute above mentioned were in these terms whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus provided in the companyl mines bonus scheme by the management of the bhowra colliery from the following garden mazdoor malis is justified.
whether the garden mazdoors malis referred to above are employed on domestic and personal work within the meaning of paragraph 3 b of the companyl mines bonus scheme 1948 and if number to what relief are they entitled and from what dates the points so referred were decided by the tribunal against the appellants by an award made on december 7 1959 and the present appeal is against that award.
the appellants employ certain malis for working as such in these bungalows and their duty is to look after and maintain the gardens there.
on the bhowra companyliery there are a number of residential bungalows belonging to the appellants occupied by their officers employed in the companyliery.
by an order made on june 23 1959 under the industrial disputes act 1947 the government of india referred this dispute along with anumberher with which we are number companycerned in this case for adjudication to the industrial tribunal dhanbad.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkar j. the appellants the bhowra kankanee companyl company limited own the bhowra and other collieries.
if number to what relief are they entitled and from what date?
at the instance of the companyciliation officer appointed under the act this dispute was settled by an agreement made on january 14 1955 to which the conciliation officer the workmen the previous owners and the appellants were parties.
january 30.
c. banerjee and p. k. chatterjee for the appellant.
