The provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Full Bench formula covered different fields and their relevance and validity were beyond question in their respective fields.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The appellant, the Tinnevelli-Tuticorin Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Tuticorin, is an electric supply undertaking, and it carries on its business as a licensee under the State Government of Madras subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910) and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948). This latter Act will hereinafter be called the Act. The business of the appellant consists of buying electric supply from the State Hydro-electric Projects and of supplying the same to consumers within the areas specified in its licence; this area is in and around Tinnevelli and Tuticorin Municipalities. The appellant s workmen (hereinafter called the respondents) made several demands in respect of their terms of employment. These demands gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred by the Madras Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai for adjudication under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (XIV of1947). Amongst the items thus referred for adjudication was included the respondents claim for additional bonus for the year 1952-53. Without prejudice to its contention that the appellant was not liable to pay bonus it had in fact voluntarily paid two months basic wages by way of bonus to the respondents. The respondents, however, claimed additional bonus and this claim was one of the items of dispute referred to the tribunal for its adjudication.

2. Before the industrial tribunal the appellant contended that since it was working as a licensee under the Act no claim for bonus was admissible outside the provisions of the Act. In support of this plea the appellant relied on the scheme of the Act which restricted the profit-making of the electricity concerns to a prescribed limit with a possibility of a surplus only in cases of overcharging provided for in the rules. The appellant s case was that, having regard to the scheme, object and the background of the Act under which the appellant was carrying on its business, the respondent s claim for additional bonus was wholly misconceived. No claim for bonus can be entertained, it was urged on behalf of the appellant, without reference to the provisions of the Act which governs the business of the appellant.

3. The tribunal, however, rejected the appellant s contentions and held that the appellant was liable to pay two months basic wages as additional bonus to the respondents. This award was passed on March 4, 1955.

4. Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal, No. 56 of 1955, to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and contended that no additional bonus should have been awarded in the absence of proof of an excess of "clear profits over reasonable return" ; it was the appellant s case that it was only from excess of clear profits over reasonable return as defined by the Act that bonus can be legitimately awarded to the respondents. It appears that about this time a number of appeals raising the same question were pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and decisions given by the Labour Appellate Tribunal showed divergence of opinion on the question about the effect of the Act in respect of the claim for bonus made by employees of electricity concerns and undertaking. That is why the Chairman of the Labour Appellate Tribunal issued an administrative order that all appeals which raised the said question should be grouped together and posted for hearing before a specially constituted fuller bench of five members. The Chairman thought that a decision by a fuller bench would finally resolve the apparent conflict disclosed in several decisions pronounced thereto, and give proper guidance to the tribunal in future.

5. The special bench of the appellate tribunal then heard the group of appeals including the appeal preferred by the appellant. It held that bonus could be ordered to be paid notwithstanding the limitations of the Act, and that the quantum of bonus should be determined even in the case of e