The principles for calculating bonus payments to workmen, as laid down in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1959 SCR 925, were applied by the tribunal in this case.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : The only question raised in these two appeals by special leave is about the quantum of bonus to be paid to the workmen (hereinafter called the respondents) by Voltas Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) for the financial year 1956-57. The dispute between the parties was referred to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. The appellant, it appears, had already paid 4 1/2 months basic wages as bonus for the relevant year but the respondents claimed it at the rate of six months basic wages subject to the minimum of Rs. 250/- per employee. The tribunal went into the figures and after making the relevant calculations came to the conclusion that the available surplus worked out according to the Full Bench formula justified the grant of bonus equal to five month s basic salary; it therefore ordered payment of this amount excluding the amount already paid. The appellant in its appeal claims that the tribunal should have allowed nothing more than what the appellant had already paid; the respondents in their appeal on the other hand claim that they should have been allowed six months bonus.

2. The principle on which bonus has to be calculated have already been decided by this Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1959 S C R 925 and the only question that arises for our consideration is whether the tribunal making its calculations has acted in accordance with those principles. This leads us to the consideration of various points raised on behalf of the parties to show that the tribunal had not acted in all particulars in accordance with the decision in Associated Cement Companies case, 1959 S C R 925.

3. We shall first take the points raised on behalf of the appellant. The first point raised is that the tribunal was wrong in not allowing a sum of rupees one lac paid as contribution to political fund as an item of expense. It is urged that this is a permissible item of expense and therefore the tribunal should not have added it back in arriving at the gross profits. We are of opinion that the tribunal was right in not allowing this amount as expenditure. In effect this payment is no different from any amount given in charity by an employer, and though such payment may be justified in the sense that it may not be against the Articles of Association of a company it is none the less an expense which need not be incurred for the business of the company. Besides, though in this particular case the donation considering the circumstances of the case was not much, it is possible that permissible donations may be out of all proportion and may thus result in reducing the available surplus from which low paid workmen are entitled to bonus. We are therefore of opinion that though the law or the rules of the company may permit the appellant to pay such amounts as donations to political funds, this is not a proper expense to be deducted when working out the available surplus in the light of the Full Bench formula. The tribunal s decision therefore on this point must be upheld.

4. The second contention of the appellant relates to deduction of what it calls extraneous income. This matter has been considered by this Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its workmen, 1960-1 S C R 1 and what we have to see is whether in accordance with the decision in that case, the appellant s claim for deducting certain amounts as extraneous income is correct. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed four items in this connection. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. 3.47 lacs. It is said that this was not the income of the year and therefore should not have been taken into account in arriving at the gross profits. The exact position with respect to this item is not clear and in any case learned counsel for the appellant appearing before the tribunal conceded that the amount could not be deducted from the profits. In view of that concession we are not prepared to allow the deduction of this amount as ext