Judgment

SHELAT, J. : On demands for revision of wage-scales, dearness allowance, medical benefit, bonus for the year 1963-64, gratuity etc. having been made by the workmen of the appellant-company in its Madras and the other branches in that region and disputes thereabout having arisen between the company and its said workmen, the Government of Madras referred them by its notification dated April 6, 1965 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal granted some and rejected the rest of the demands. Aggrieved by the award the company filed this appeal special leave granted by this Court.

2. Though the award dealt with a number of demands counsel for the appellant-company restricted its challenge against the award on three subjects only. Consequently, we are concerned in this appeal with those three subjects only, namely, bonus for the year 1963-64, medical benefits and revision by the Tribunal of the company s existing gratuity scheme.

3. As regards the bonus, the company had already paid to the workmen bonus at the rate of 4 months basic pay as against the demand for the maximum bonus calculated in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and on consolidated as against the basic wages. The Tribunal conceded that demand and granted bonus at 20 per cent of the consolidated wages. In view, however, of this Court s decision in Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Union, 1967-1 SCR 15 Mr. Ramamurthi for the workmen conceded that the Act cannot apply in respect of the year in question and that the bonus payable for that year will have to be calculated on the basis of the Full Bench Formula as approved by this Court. The award to that extent therefore, has to be set aside and remanded to the Tribunal for determining the bonus in accordance with the said Formula.

4. On the question of medical facilities, the workmen s demand is contained in paras 27 to 31 of their statement of claim filed before the Tribunal according to which the workmen wanted the company to reimburse all medical expenses incurred by them on production of bills therefor. In paras 27 and 28 of the statement, it was stated that the company had a scheme for medical benefit for its workmen at Calcutta made under the consent award of 1962 and that there was no reason "why this amenity should be refused to the workmen in this region". Para 30 of the statement stated that there was a discussion between the parties regarding this demand when the company agreed to appoint a medical officer for consultation by the workmen and also to meet the cost of medicines upto Rs. 100 for a workman per year. This offer, however, was rejected on three grounds : (1) that the condition as to the ceiling was discriminatory, (2) that the ceiling was too low and (3) that there was no warrant for not extending the benefit to workmen of the branch officers outside Madras.

5. This demand is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 14 of the award. It is clear therefrom that the union s contention before the Tribunal was that there was no reason why "this amenity of medical facility which the company has granted to its Calcutta workmen should be refused to the workmen of the Madras region". The contention thus clearly was that the company having made a scheme for its Calcutta employees it was discriminatory to refuse such a scheme to its workmen in Madras region. It is equally clear that the offer made by the company and referred to in the statement of claim by the workmen was rejected as it contained a ceiling which was not in its Calcutta scheme, and it was, therefore, that its offer was considered discriminatory. In view of these contentions the Tribunal agreed that a scheme for medical benefit for this region was called for. The Calcutta scheme was not produced before the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal proceeded a frame its own scheme. The Tribunal rejected the demand for reimbursement of all medical expenses in respect of which bills would be produced as it felt that suc