Dharmadhikari, J.:— The petitioner-union which claims to be a recognised trade union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, has filed this petition claiming a bonus at the rate of 20 per cent for a period from 1 February, 1985 to 30 September, 1985. It is an admitted position that for the said period a bonus at the rate of 8.33 per cent is already paid. According to the petitioner-union by virtue of a letter, dated 10 August, 1984 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra to the Managing Director, Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Ltd., the services of the employees were placed at the disposal of the new organisation respondent 1 Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation, Ltd. By a further letter, dated 18 January, 1985, which is an absorption order, it was made clear that the conditions of services and the benefits, which the employees were enjoying under the Co-operative Marketing Federation, Ltd., will be continued even in the new organisation. It is then contended by the petitioners that an assurance was also given vide office order, dated 19 June, 1986 that a bonus at the rate of 20 per cent will be paid. This is further clear from a letter written by the respondent 1 to the employees-union. Accordingly in the balance sheet initially prepared and subsequently corrected, a provision has been made, for payment of bonus at the rate of 20 per cent. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that now by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel respondents are estopped from denying the claim for bonus as made in this petition. It is also their case that the claim made is not in breach of any of the statutory provisions including Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, because what is being claimed is maximum permissible under the Act and not beyond it.
2. On the other hand it is contended by the respondents that up to 1 January, 1985, bonus which was to be paid at the rate of 20 per cent was paid by the marketing federation and not by the respondent 1 cotton federation. The employees became the employees of the new organisation, i.e, respondent 1 cotton federation from 1 February, 1985. The payment of bonus at 20 per cent was not a condition of service in the marketing federation, and, therefore, is not a condition of service even with respondent 1. At best a bonus is payable as per the Payment of Bonus Act and accordingly minimum bonus has been paid. The provision in the balance sheet was made on a wrong assumption that the cotton federation will be getting a commission at the rate of 2 per cent. In fact commission at that rate is not received and, therefore, any provisional provision made in the balance sheet cannot confer any right. The letter on which reliance is placed by the petitioner does not make any representation to confer a legal right upon the petitioner. It is also contended by the respondents that since this petition involves disputed questions of fact which can only be gone into under S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, this petition is not maintainable. It was then contended during the course of arguments that by virtue of S. 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act, respondent 1 cotton federation is not liable to pay any bonus under the said Act.
3. By filing a separate affidavit the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, has contended that the claim made by the petitioner regarding payment of the balance amount of bonus at the rate of 11.67 per cent is not maintainable in law, nor it is binding upon the respondent 1 or the State Government to pay the said amount. The provision made in the balance sheet was based on a wrong assumption and, therefore, cannot confer any legal right. It is also contended on behalf of the Government that since this petition involves disputed questions of fact, same cannot be resolved in this petition and dispute under S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, is the only remedy available to the petitioner-union.
4. Dr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-union, contended before us that in view of the letter, dated 10 August, 1984, the services of the employees working in the marketing federation were placed at the disposal of the cotton federation. By the further letter, dated 18 January, 1985, employees were absorbed in the services of the new federation on the existing terms and conditions of services. Therefore, the cotton federation is now estopped from denying its liability for payment of bonus.
5. In our view from the pleadings of the parties or the material placed on record, without any further evidence, a conclusion cannot be drawn that there was a definite representation to the effect that the bonus at the rate of 20 per cent will be paid. There is nothing on record to show that the employees had altered their position by acting upon the said representation, if any, and that too to their prejudice. Therefore, in the absence of proper pleadings and evidence on record, it is not possible for us to record a definite finding one way or the other, so far as the plea of promissory estoppel is concerned, which is for the first time raised during the course of arguments. In this view of the matter in our view the controversy raised before us, which involves disputed question of facts cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner will have to avail of the alternative remedy available under the Payment of Bonus Act.
6. However, it is contended by Dr. Kulkarni that though both the respondents, i.e, respondent 1 cotton federation as well as the Government have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and have stated that the petitioner must seek a reference under S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, in view of the directions issued by the Government, the authority constituted under the Bonus Act or the Industrial Disputes Act, may not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. In our view there is no substance in this contention. A dispute is being raised by the employees of respondent 1 against their employer—cotton federation. If under the statute or law the employees are entitled to get bonus, then by issuing directions, Government cannot deprive them of their legal right. This position is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore, if a dispute is raised under S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, then the competent Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the said dispute. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the controversy as the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy open under S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, in our view this is not a fit case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.
7. Hence rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Since the matter is pending long if any dispute is raised and a reference is sought by the employees, the Government shall consider the question of making the reference on its own merits, in accordance with law.