Appeal No 227 of 1958
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31 1956 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India Calcutta in Appeals Nos
36 and 38 of 1953
MC Setalvad Attorney General for India and Naunit Lal for the appellant
P K Chatterjee for tile respondents
1959 April 23
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 763 GAJENDRAGADKAR J
This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the Patna Electric Supply Co Ltd hereafter called the appellant and its workmen represented by the Patna Electric Supply Workers  Union hereafter called the respondent
The appellant is a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Patna
It is an industrial establishment engaged solely in public utility service namely the supply of electricity for the requirements of the public and is a licensee under the provisions of the Electric Supply Act 1948 54 of 1948
On March 29 1952 the Government of Bihar by a notification issued under section 7 read with section 101 of the 14 of 1947 hereafter called the Act referred twelve items of dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr H K Chaudhuri as the sole member
Out of the said items the present appeal is concerned with only one  and it relates to  the housing facilities to the workmen and principle of allotment of quarters to them 
The respondent had put forward a demand that the appellant should provide houses to its employees and should undertake the construction of quarters immediately in that belie
The respondent s case was that the appellant was bound to provide quarters to its employees and let out the same to them according to the Bihar Government scheme
The appellant denied its liability to make any housing provision for its employees and that gave rise to the industrial dispute
The appellant urged before the tribunal that the housing facilities and allotment of quarters to workmen was the primary responsibility of the State and not of the employer and it alleged that in any event it was financially not possible for the appellant to undertake the task
The appellant had also contended that it had to function within the limits prescribed by the Electricity Supply Act 1948 and that the relevant provisions of the said Act would not permit the appellant to undertake any expenditure to meet the respondent s demand
On March 9 1953 the tribunal upheld the respondent s claim and by its award it directed the appellant 764 to start construction of at least 15 quarters according to the specifications laid down in the Government scheme within one year from the date of the publication of the award
This part of the award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but the appellate tribunal was not impressed by the appellant s pleas and so it dismissed the appeal on January 31 1956
It agreed with the tribunal in holding that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government was binding on the appellant and it saw no substance in the appellant s contention that expenditure involved in the construction of the quarters would be inadmissible under the Electricity Act
The appellant then applied for and obtained special leave from this Court on September 17 1956 
That is how this appeal has come to this Court and the only question which it raises for our decision is whether the direction issued by the award calling upon the appellant to start the construction of at least 15 quarters is justified or not
It is true that the appellant has provided housing facilities for some members of its staff
It appears that 17 employees out of 183 in the Power Station 146 out of 329 in the Mains Department and 1 out of 58 in the General Department have been provided by the appellant with free quarters whereas one employee in the Mains Department is granted house allowance at 12 12 in lieu of a house
But this arrangement is a matter of the appellant s choice and volition and it cannot be made an obligation and thus virtually a term of employment that is the appellant s case
On the other hand the respondent s contention is that the Bihar Government scheme of industrial housing has now been finalised and it imposes upon the appellant an obligation to provide housing facilities for all its employees
It is not seriously disputed by the respondent that the industrial adjudication has so far consistently held that providing housing facilities for industrial labour is the primary responsibility of the State but the argument is that the scheme formulated by the Industrial Housing Sub Committee in 765 Bihar has materially altered the position so far as the State of Bihar is concerned
It is this argument which has been accepted by the tribunals below
They have held that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government on the recommendation of the Industrial Housing Sub Committee though recommendatory in character imposes a moral obligation on the employer to provide housing for his employees and in industrial adjudication this moral obligation can be enforced against it
It is this conclusion which must first be examined
It appears that in March 1938 the Government of Bihar had set up a Committee known as the Bihar Labour Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr Rajendra Prasad for the purpose of enquiring into the conditions of industrial labour in the State and for making such recommendations as might appear practicable with the object of improving the level of wages and conditions of work of industrial workers
This Committee submitted its report to Government in April 1940
It had suggested that housing on an adequate scale should be made a statutory obligation of the employer but the extent to which the industry could be required to fulfil such an obligation should be determined by the State Government after careful investigation into its financial condition
No action was however taken on this recommendation by the State Government
Subsequently the Bihar Government appointed the Industrial Housing Sub Committee on the recommendation of the Bihar Central Standing Labour Advisory Board and this Sub Committee submitted its report on December 16 1948 recommending the setting up of an industrial housing board for formulating certain schemes for housing industrial workers
The matter was then considered by the Bihar Central Standing Labour Advisory Board on February 11 1950 and the Board asked the Industrial Housing Sub Committee to re examine the question further and make specific recommendations
Accordingly the Sub
Committee reconsidered the matter and made its final recommendations on August 17 1950
These recommendations were considered by the Bihar Central 766 Standing Labour Advisory Board in September 1950 and they were adopted by it with slight modifications
This scheme was finally sanctioned by the State Government
Under this scheme the responsibility for housing industrial labour is placed on the shoulders of the employers
To begin with the scheme was intended to be applicable only to factories registered under 
It provides for financial assistance by State Government to the employer on terms and conditions specified in it
It appears that under para
4 of the scheme the State Government may give loan to the employer
to the extent of 50 of the capital required for industrial housing and that the loan would carry interest at 3  per annum
The remaining 50 of the capital is to be provided for by the employer
The amount granted as a loan together with interest thereon has to be repaid by the employer in 25 annual instalments of equal amount on the dates fixed for such repayment
There is also a default clause which enables the State Government to recover the amount due from the properties mortgaged to the State Government for the loan or from other assets of the borrower
The scheme prescribes the terms on which the quarters when built should be let out to the employees and it lays down the standard size and other specifications of the quarters
The respondent s contention is that since this scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government it imposes on the employers in the State of Bihar a moral obligation to implement it and industrial adjudication can give effect to the scheme by issuing appropriate directions by their awards this contention has been accepted by the tribunals below
We do not think that the scheme in question can justify the direction issued by the award under appeal
It is clear that though the original Bihar Labour Enquiry Committee had recommended to the State Government that housing on an adequate scale should be made a statutory obligation of the employer the State Government has so far taken no action on this recommendation 
It is common ground that the State 767 Legislature has passed no legislation imposing statutory obligation on the employer to provide for housing on an adequate scale to his employees
The scheme in question on which the respondent relies has no statutory force
It merely approves of the recommendations made by the Bihar Central Standing Labour Advisory Board and the only liability which the State Government has purported to undertake by sanctioning the scheme is to agree to afford partial Gaj financial assistance to the employers on the terms and conditions specified in it
In other words if any industrial employer wants to provide housing facilities for his employees he may be able to ask for financial assistance from the State Government and the State Government may afford such assistance under the scheme but that is a very different matter
It may be conceded that in a large majority of cases industrial labour is very badly in need of housing accommodation and it would therefore be desirable that such facilities should be afforded to labour either by the State or if possible by the employer or by both of them acting together in co operation but we do not see how the present scheme which no doubt is laudable in its object can afford any valid basis for issuing directions against the appellant calling upon it to construct quarters for its workmen as the award purports to do
It appears that both the tribunals assumed that the scheme in question had been adopted with the consent of the appellant and as such the appellant was bound by it
This assumption is clearly unjustified
No partner of the appellant was a member of the Committee and Mr Chandra  the appellant s Labour Adviser was not its member in 1950 but became one in 1952
Mr Chandra is a Labour Adviser of other companies as well and so it would be difficult to accept the argument that even after he became a member in 1952 he could represent the appellant in the legal sense so as to bind it by his consent but apart from this aspect of the matter even Mr Chandra was not a member in 1950 when the scheme was adopted
It is true that some representatives of industrial employers were nominated by the State Government as members 768 of the Committee  but that would not justify the assumption that the scheme adopted by the Committee and sanctioned by the Government is binding on the appellant
It is significant that even the scheme lays down that providing housing accommodation to the lowest paid workers is mainly the responsibility of the employers and that the State Government could only help the employers by giving them aid in the 
form of loan and in the matter of acquisition of land
The scheme is thus merely recommendatory and the use of the word  mainly  shows that it is vague and cannot be and was not expected to be enforced as it stands
It is clear that tribunals cannot call upon the Government to advance a loan to the employers whenever they pass awards calling upon the employers to start the construction of quarters for their employees so that if Government takes time to sanction the required loan or owing to its own difficulties it is unable to sanction it the employer would be exposed to the risk of the penalties arising out of his failure to comply with the award and that only serves to emphasise that the problem must be tackled by the employers and the State in co operation with each other and cannot at present at least be treated as a subject matter of an award
We are therefore satisfied that the scheme in question which is the sole basis for the award cannot have the effect of introducing a term of employment between the appellant and its workmen in regard to housing facilities
We may incidentally point out that if the present award is upheld it would give rise to similar demands from employees in other allied or similar industries in Bihar and if such demands are upheld it would inevitably impose a very large burden on the employers and that may materially affect the industrial progress of the State of Bihar
It is necessary to emphasise that in considering the claims of workmen sympathetically on the ground of social and economic justice industrial adjudication has to bear in mind the interests of national economy and progress which are relevant and material
We must therefore hold that the award under appeal cannot be sustained on the 769 basis of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government
It has however been urged before us on behalf of the respondent that apart from the scheme the industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to make an award calling upon the appellant to provide housing accommodation for its employees
The argument is that unlike commercial arbitration industrial arbitration may and often does involve the making of a new contract or the imposition of new obligations on the employer in the interests of social justice and having regard to the fact that the employees are very badly in need of housing accommodation it was open to the tribunal in the present case to have directed the appellant to make a beginning in that direction by providing housing accommodation to some of its employees
In support of this argument the respondent has relied upon the oft quoted observation of Ludwig Teller that  Industrial arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement or the making of a new one or in general the creation of new obligations or modification of old ones while commercial arbitration generally concerns itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes relating to existing agreements 1
There is no doubt that in appropriate cases industrial adjudication may impose new obligations on the employer in the interest of social justice and with the object of securing peace and harmony between the employer and his workmen and fall co operation between them
This view about the jurisdiction and power of the industrial tribunals has been consistently recognised in this country since the decision of the Federal Court in Western India Automobile Association vs The Industrial Tribunal Bombay 2
In that case the employer had challenged the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal to direct the reinstatement of his employees and it was urged that such a direction was contrary to the known principles which govern the 1 Ludwig Teller s  Labour Disputes  Collective Bargaining  Vol
2 AIR 1949 FC III 120
97 770 relationship between master and servant and was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal
This contention was negatived by the Federal Court and it was observed that industrial adjudication does not mean adjudication according to the strict law of master and servant
 The award of the tribunal  observed Mahajan J in delivering the judgment of the Court  may contain provisions for the settlement of a dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary law but tile tribunal is not fettered in any way by these limitations
The same view has been more emphatically expressed by Mukherjea J in The Bharat Bank Ltd Delhi vs The Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd Delhi 1
 In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen  observed the learned Judge  the function of the tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law
It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it considers reasonable and proper though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement
It has not merely to interpret or to give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties
It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace 
In Rohtas Industries Ltd vs Brijnandan Pandey Mr Justice section K Das has expressed the same conclusion when he observed that  a court of law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the courts to make contracts for people and the parties must make their own contracts
The courts reach their limit of power when they enforce contracts which the parties have made
An Industrial Tribunal is not so fettered and may create new obligations or modify contracts in the interests of industrial peace to protect legitimate trade union activities and to prevent unfair practice or victimisation 
Thus there can be no doubt that an industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to make a proper and a reasonable order in any industrial dispute  and in that sense the respondent may be right when it contends that it was within the competence of the tribunals below to entertain its 1   5I3
2   810
771 grievance about housing accommodation and to give it appropriate relief in that behalf
But assuming that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute the question still remains whether apart from the agreement on which the tribunals have based their decision the award under appeal can be justified on general grounds
In our opinion under the present conditions the answer to this question has to be in favour of the appellant and against the respondent Industrial tribunals have consistently taken the view that housing accommodation of industrial labour is the primary responsibility of the State  and there has also been no difference of opinion on the point that in the present economic condition of our industries it would be inexpedient to impose on the employers the obligation to provide housing accommodation for their employees
Besides a scheme of wages properly fixed necessarily takes into account house rent amongst other relevant facts  and under a proper scheme of dearness allowance adjustments can be made when necessary from time to time so as to take into account an appreciable rise in the rents which industrial labour may have to pay
That is why usually tribunals do not entertain employees  claim for housing and do not even allow a separate demand for house allowance as such
This position is not disputed before us by the respondent
We may however refer to a few typical decisions of the Industrial Tribunals on this point
In Eastern Plywood Manufacturing Co Ltd And Their Workers 1 the Industrial Tribunal rejected the workmen s claim for housing accommodation or in the alternative for house rent allowance of Rs 10 per month on the ground that
 the obligation for housing labour in an urban area is not really on the employer and that the tribunal had already considered in the issues on basic pay and dearness allowance as to how much the company should be directed to pay in emoluments to its workmen
The tribunal thought that it would not be reasonable to saddle the company with any further financial commitments in the shape of house rent allowance
1 772 In Mahomad Rai Akbarali Khan vs The Associated Cement Companies Ltd 1 the Labour Appellate Tribunal has considered this problem
It was urged by the employees before the appellate tribunal that the employers should either provide quarters or pay house rent allowance whereas the company contended that it was not the function of the management to provide accommodation for its employees
The appellate tribunal however took the view that the employers  contention should be accepted subject to considerable qualifications in certain cases and it proceeded to consider the special features of the problem presented by the employers  factory at Sevalia
Sevalia was a village until the employer went there to start its factory which needed the services of a large contingent of workers
 When an industrial concern like this  observed the appellate tribunal  bursts upon a rural area there is a very considerable impact on its economy
The inhabitants nearby join the factory as well as those living further away there is also an influx of persons from outside in short it means that accommodation becomes scarce and expensive and if a workman has to go further afield for his accommodation he is put to considerable physical fatigue and inconvenience
In such circumstances it has not been the policy of the tribunals to ignore a claim for house rent allowance 
 After making these observations the appellate tribunal proceeded to readjust the dearness allowance payable to the employees after taking into account the increased house rent which they had to pay for their housing accommodation in Sevalia  and having thus readjusted the dearness allowance the appellate tribunal held that no separate order as to house rent allowance was necessary
It appears that in that case the industrial tribunal had taken the view that the problem was not likely to be solved by granting house rent allowance to the employees and that the only practical course therefore was that the company should either help the workers in building their houses or that the company itself should construct quarters
That is why it bad rejected the 1 773 employees  demand for house rent allowance but had recommended to the concern to undertake building operations
The Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this conclusion and took a more practical and a wiser course by readjusting the dearness allowance so as to grant adequate relief to the employees in that behalf
It would thus be seen that even where the employer bad started its factory at a small village like Sevalia the appellate tribunal did not accept the employees  demand for housing accommodation and did not also think it proper to ask the employer to pay to its em ployees any separate special house rent allowance
In Samastipur Central Sugar Co Ltd And Their Workmen 1 the Labour Appellate Tribunal bad occasion to consider this question once again
In dealing with the merits of the problem it accepted the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in Mahomad Rai Akbarali Khan vs The Associated Cement Co Ltd
 and observed that  where the basic wage and dear ness allowance are consolidated house rent at the normal time and the subsequent rise must be presumed to have been taken into account when the total consolidated amount was fixed 
The same view was taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Messrs National Carbon Co India Ltd vs National Carbon Co Mazdoor Union Calcutta 3
In that case the tribunal had directed the employer to pay his workmen house rent allowance because it had taken the view that in making the said order it was granting a relief lesser than granting free quarters which the employees had claimed and that the lesser was involved in the greater relief and could be granted by it
On the evidence adduced in the said pro ceedings the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not agree with this view
It held that  provision for free quarters by constructing houses cannot permit of comparison with payment of house rent allowance in money month after month to determine which is greater and which is smaller than the relief of pro free quarters 
On this view the Labour 1 1955 II LLJ 727 730
2 8 774 Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to award house rent allowance when the dispute referred to it for adjudication was about free quarters
It is thus clear that industrial tribunals have consistently refused to entertain a claim for housing accommodation or for the grant of a special and separate housing allowance against their employers
That is why in making the award under appeal the tribunals below were at pains to emphasise the fact that the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government made the position substantially different so far as Bihar was concerned
The problem of housing industrial labour has been the subject matter of some legislative enactments
As regards the workers employed in Plantations the  69 of 1951 provides that it shall be the duty of every employer to construct and maintain for every worker and his family residing in the plantation necessary housing accommodation subject to the other provisions of the Act
Housing Boards have also been established in different States to tackle the larger problem of housing in general
The Bombay Housing Board Act 1948 Bom
69 of 1948 the Mysore Labour Housing Act 1949 Mys
28 of 1949 the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act 1950 Madhya Pradesh 43 of 1950 the Hyderabad Labour Housing Act 1952 Hyd
36 of 1952 the Saurashtra Housing Act 1954 Saurashtra 32 of 1954 and the U P Industrial Housing Act 1955 U P 32 of 1955 are attempts made by the respective States to meet their responsibility in the matter of providing housing accommodation to its citizens in general and to industrial labour in particular
This problem appears to have been considered by the Planning Commission in its report on the Second Five Year Plan
Chapter 26 of the report deals with the genera
problem of housing and ch
27 deals With labour policy and programmes
The discussion of the problem in these two chapters shows that housing shortage can be conquered only by sustained and well 775 planned efforts made by the States and the industry together
It is a very big problem and involves the expenditure of a huge amount
Efforts are being made by the Central Government to invite the co operation of industrial employers to tackle this problem with the progressively increasing financial and other assistance offered by the State Governments
But it is obvious that this problem cannot at present be tackled in isolation by industrial tribunals in dealing with housing demands made by employees in individual cases
In the present economic condition of our industries it would be inexpedient to impose this addi tional burden on the employers
Such an imposition may retard the progress of our industrial development and production and thereby prejudicially affect the national economy
Besides such an imposition on the employers would ultimately be passed by them to the consumers and that may result in an increase in prices which is not desirable from a national point of view
It is true that the concept of social justice is not static and may expand with the growth and prosperity of our industries and a rise in our production and national income but so far as  the present state of our national economy and the general financial condition of our industry are concerned it would be undesirable to think of introducing such an obligation on the employers today
That is why we think the industrial tribunals have very wisely refused to entertain pleas for housing accommodation made by workmen from time to time against their employers
In the present case it is clear that the question about the financial ability of the appellant to meet the additional burden imposed by the award has not been considered at all
In fact the Tribunals below seem to have taken the view that since the appellant is bound by the scheme it is immaterial if not irrelevant to enquire whether the appellant would be able to meet the expenses involved in the construction of quarters as directed by the award
It is obvious that such a view proceeds on purely theoretical considerations which have no relation to existing facts in regard to the financial position of the industry or the state of 776 national economy
In fairness to the Tribunals we ought to add that if the tribunals had not taken an erroneous view about the effect of the scheme sanctioned by the Bihar Government they would not have granted the demand made by the respondent for housing accommodation
Since we hold that on the merits the award cannot be sustained we do not think it is necessary to consider whether the expenditure involved in the construction of quarters would be admissible under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act
The result is the appeal succeeds and the award under appeal is set aside
In the circumstances of this case we think it would be fair that the parties should bear their own costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
In 1949 the appellant framed a scheme called  Tonnage Pro duction Bonus Scheme  whereunder the workmen were to get 13 days  basic wages by way of bonus on a production Of 30000 tons and thereafter an additional one day s basic wage for every 46o tons produced upto a maximum Of 36000
The scheme was accepted by the workmen
In 1953 the workmen raised industrial disputes claiming profit bonus for the years 1950 51 and 1951 52 in addition to the production bonus and asked for revision of the production bonus scheme
The Industrial Tribunal to which the disputes were referred rejected both the claims
On appeal the Appellate Tribunal awarded profit bonus equal to one month s basic wage for 1951 52 but dismissed the claim for 1950 51 as having been made too late
It revised the production bonus scheme by providing for i day s basic wage for each increase Of 460 tons over 30000 tons uPtO 36000 tons and for 2 days basic wage for each increase Of 46o tons in excess Of 36000 tons
The appellant contended i that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to vary the production bonus scheme  ii that such a scheme could only be varied by agreement  iii that no proper grounds had been made out for varying the scheme  iv that profit bonus could not be awarded in addition  to production bonus  v that the production bonus in this case was really profit bonus  and vi that there was no available surplus out of which profit bonus could be paid
Held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revise the pro duction bonus scheme
Payment of production bonus was payment of further emoluments depending not upon extra profits but upon extra production as an incentive to the workmen to put in more than the standard performance
Though it was discretionary with the appellants to introduce the scheme once the scheme was introduced and put into operation it became a term of employment of the workmen and any dispute with respect to such term of employment was an industrial dispute which could properly be referred to a Tribunal
The power of the Tribunal in considering the scheme 1013 was not confined to the question of mala fides etc
of the employer s action but it had power to vary the terms of the scheme if circumstances justified it
There was no justification for interfering with the scheme upto a production Of 36000 tons in view of the agreement between the parties
But the scheme did not provide for production above 36000 tons and as such there was no agreement with respect to this and as the production had gone up beyond 36000 tons it was necessary to provide for production bonus beyond this quantity
There were two reasons for increase in the rates of payment of production bonus viz i the intensification of the efforts of the workmen in increasing production and ii the progressive going down of the labour cost of production per ton as production increased
The rates had to be increased progressively with production
Consequently for each 46o tons increase in production the proper rates for payment of production bonus would be 1 14 1 34 and 2 days  basic wages respectively or production between
36000 and 42000 tons 42000 and 48000 tons 48000 and 54000 tons and 54000 and 60000 tons
The  Tonnage Production Bonus Scheme  introduced by the appellant was in fact also a production bonus scheme and not a profit bonus scheme
The fact that one of the terms of the scheme empowered the directors to cancel or reduce the payment of production bonus in case the gross profit was not sufficient to meet fixed dividends interest depreciation charges taxation and 10 dividend to ordinary shareholders did not make it a profit bonus scheme as the circumstances mentioned are not the same that have to be taken into account in arriving at the available surplus according to the Full Bench formula
Nor was the position altered by the clause in the scheme which empowered the appellant to cancel or modify the scheme in case Government enforced by legislation any scheme for bonus or profit sharing as this did not mean that the scheme itself was for profit sharing or profit bonus
The other clauses of the scheme clearly indicated that it was for production bonus
If there was an available surplus of profits according to the Full Bench Formula the workmen were entitled to get profit bonus in addition to the production bonus
Mathuradas Kanji vs Labour Appellate Tribunal AIR  distinguished
Held further that there was available surplus of profits and the profit bonus equal to one month s basic wages was properly awarded by the Appellate Tribunal for 1951 52
The claim for deduction for rehabilitation was made on a wrong basis by the appellant
In order to arrive at a realistic figure for rehabilitation the total block should be divided into three heads  i landiibuildings railway sidings and things of that nature which had a much longer life and where no imports were needed and iiimachinery
In the case of land no replacement was necessary and no provision need be made for rehabilitation
In the 1014 case of buildings etc
the multiplier would be smaller while the divisor would be larger
Machinery bad again to be sub divided according to when it was purchased so as to arrive at correct multipliers and divisors
As machinery purchased before the last war stood on one footing there would be a pre 1939 block
The second block may be of machinery purchased during the war and the third of that purchased after the war
The last two were not rigid divisions
In the circumstances of the present case the proper multipliers for these three bocks would be 4 2 and 1 respectively
As both Tribunals had accepted 10 as the divisor that may be accepted as
the divisor for the three blocks
Calculating on that basis the rehabilitation costs did not wipe out the entire gross profits as claimed by the appellants and there was an available surplus out of which profit bonus could be paid
The clerical staff budli workers and temporary workers were not entitled to claim attendance bonus as they were differ ent from other workmen