Writ jurisdiction and bonus disputes: statutory industrial remedies must be used where facts are disputed.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not the proper forum for a dispute over bonus or ex-gratia payable to employees of a public sector establishment where the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided a specific statutory remedy. Because the controversy involved disputed questions of fact and was treated as an industrial dispute under the statutory scheme, the parties were required to pursue the prescribed machinery rather than invoke writ jurisdiction in the ordinary course. Owing to the long lapse of time, the matter was directed to be referred to the appropriate Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in a dispute concerning bonus/ex-gratia payable to employees of a public sector establishment when the statutory scheme under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided a specific remedy.

Analysis: The dispute related to the application of the bonus law to a public sector establishment and the entitlement of employees to bonus or ex-gratia, matters which the statute itself treated as an industrial dispute. The existence of disputed questions of fact and the availability of a statutory forum weighed against entertaining the writ petition. The proper course was to resort to the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act rather than invoke writ jurisdiction in the ordinary course.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained on merits and the parties were required to pursue the statutory remedy; however, because of the long lapse of time, the matter was directed to be referred to the appropriate Tribunal.

---