Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
I.D. Dua and Vashishtha Bhargava

JUDGMENT

Vashishtha Bhargava, J

1. These three appeals by special leave arise out. of two Awards by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in two References relating to bonus made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer is Messrs. Gannon Dunkerlay and Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). The workmen of the Company were represented in these industrial disputes by the Gannon Dunkerlay Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Union"). One reference related to the bonus claimed by the workmen at 50% of their annual wages for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60, while the second reference related to the bonus claimed at the same rate for the year 1960-61. The Tribunal awarded the bonus after calculating surplus available for distribution of bonus in accordance with the Full Bench Formula laid down by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and approved by this Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka v. Its Workmen   MANU/SC/0117/1959 : (1959)ILLJ644SC . Both parties to the appeals are agreed that the Tribunal acted rightly in applying that formula for calculation of bonus payable to the workmen; but both the parties were dissatisfied with the manner in which the calculations were made and with the details of the calculations. When arguments were heard by us in these appeals, we asked learned Counsel for parties and the representative of the Union in the appeal of the Union to give us fresh calculations based on Full Bench Formula as explained by this Court in the cases of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Its Workmen   MANU/SC/0224/1967 : (1968)ILLJ816SC and Workmen of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Hindustan Motors Ltd.   MANU/SC/0236/1967 : (1969)ILLJ523SC , as the Tribunal had not followed all those principles. Counsel for parties gave us calculations, but it was again found that there was difference of opinion on a number of points arising in connection with these calculations. The points of difference were 10 in number. As a result, we heard detailed arguments on all those 10 points of difference, and we proceed to give our decision on these 10 points of difference. We may add that, on conclusion of the arguments on all these contested points, we indicated to Counsel our decision on 9 of them when reserving the judgment, so that Counsel could work out agreed figures of surplus available for distribution of bonus in each of the three years in accordance with those principles and the other, agreed principles. The figures of available surplus having been supplied by Counsel for parties, we shall proceed in this judgment to allocate the surplus and to declare what is the appropriate amount of bonus payable in respect of each of the three years. We now take up the ten contested points, one at a time.

2. The first dispute related to the qu........