Judgment

P.B.Gajendragadkar, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave aries oat of an industiral dispate .between the Appellant Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf and the respondents, its workmen. On 20/04/1961 the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, referred two items of dispute between the parties to the adjundication of the industiral tribunal at New Delhi. These items were in regard to the claim for additional bonna made by the respondents for the year 1969 and in regard to the grievance made by them in respect of the diamissal of Shamsul Zaman. The tribunal haa ordered that the appellant abonid pay to each and every workman of the Hamdard Dawakbana who worked In the calendar year 1959 additional bonaa equivalent to the one-third of his earninga by way of basic wagea for the said year. It haa also held that the order of dismissal passed against Shamaal Zaman was unjustified and so. It has directed the appellant to reinstate him in service without break In the continuity of his service. Back-wages daring the period of hia dlamlaal have, however, not been allowed to the workman. In the present appeal, the appellant ohallenges the correctness and propriety of both the directions given by the award.

(2) HAMDARD Dawakbana, the appellant, was originally established in a modest way in 1906 by Hakim Haflz Abdal Majld. It was then manufacturing and selling Indigenous _taiple and compound medicines. On the death of Hakim Haflz Abdul Majld, his heirs conducted the aald business till 1948. On or about 28 Auguat 1948, the aald heirs and successors settled the said business with all its assets, goodwill, etc., including the trade marks, on an Irrevocable wakf with the object that the income from the said trust should be utilized for the advancement, reform and development of the indegenous system of medicine and for affording medical, educa tion and social relief to deserving people In the country.

(3) UNDER the terms of the wakf, the business is to be managed by at least one and no more than two mutawallis Provision is made for the remuneratlon of the said mutawallis. The said remuneration la in addition to the " khandani " income. These mutawallis have to be appointed from the heira and successors of the settlors. The net profits of the appellant are determined under Cl. 83 of the wakfnama , the terms and conditlons of the wakf require that the appellant should set apart oneeight of the net profits towards the reserve fund; one-fourth of the balance la to be apent for the personal and family benefit of the aettlora-It la called khawbanl income; the balance of three-fourths ie to be apent on objects of charity and general and public utility as well as for the Individual and collective needs of the community and the country.

(4) IT appears that in or about 1968, the appellant framed a scheme for the payment of bonus to Its employees, and in acoordance with the aald acheme, about Ra. 70,000.00 have been paid by the appellant to the respondents for the relevant year. The respondents, however, urged that the appellant was as industry within the meaning of the industrial Disputes Act and that under the full bench formula they were entitled to much larger amount of bonus for the relevant year. That la bow the dispate about the bonaa arose between the parties.

(5) IN deciding this dispute, the tribunal has applied the full bench formula, baa made deductions In respect of four prior charges and baa held that the available surplus for the relevant year Is Ra. 6,12,600. Out of this available surplus. It baa ordered that a lakh of rupees should be paid by the appellant to the reapondenta by way of additional bonus. In other words, the tribanal thought that the total amount of bonue to which the respondents were entitled waa Rs. 1,70,000.00.

(6) ON behalf of the appellant, the leaned Solloltor-General contended that the trbunal waa In error in awarding to the appeliant by way of prior charge Ra. 68,000.00 only under the heading "Inc