P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) EMPLOYEES working in the factory of the appellant herein which is a society registered under the Societies Act, have moved this Court and questioned the validity of a Government Order under which the payment of bonus to them has been purportedly ordered to be stopped. Learned Single Judge has taken notice of all relevant facts to conclude: (1) the Society is wholly owned/sponsored by the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, it may be falling in the category of a Government Undertaking; and (2) notwithstanding however the above, on the facts as showing from the materials on record, the appellant has been making profit and there has been nothing to show that it has not been running its business in competition with other profit undertakings and on the said basis concluded that although it is a Government undertaking, it is not an institution established for the purposes of profit and thus, the petitioners do not fall in the classes of employees as enumerated under Section 32 read with 20 of the Payment of Bonus Act, there is no reason why the bonus be not paid to them. Learned Single Judge has also taken notice of the fact that although called "ex gratia" the appellant has been regularly paying to the petitioners the minimum bonus prescribed under the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, has endeavoured before us to urge that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant has been selling any goods produced or manufactured by it in competition with an establishment in private sector, and the income from such sale or services or both is not less than 20 per cent of the gross income of the establishment in public sector for that year and in any event it was a case in which the Court would have accepted the plea that under section 22 of the Act, this would have been treated as an Industrial Dispute.

( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge has adverted to the above and rightly answered against the appellant. No one who is the control and know of facts can plead that such facts are not available on the record of the case. A person who withholds information, must admit of its presence, otherwise must disclose that the income from the business concerned was falling short of 20% of the gross income of the establishment and / or there was no manufacturer or purchaser of the goods in private sector in competition with the appellant Section 22 of the act, in our view, has rightly been interpreted by the learned single Judge that it only extends the definition of industrial dispute for the purpose of adjudication in the case of a bona fide dispute between the parties. The plea that the appellant has apparently raised lacks bona fides. Learned single Judge has taken notice of the income and stated in the impugned judgment as follows:"in fact, the petitioners in paragraph 8 of the affidavit categorically stated that the 2nd respondent earned profits of Rs. 2,24,52,000-00, Rs. 3,17,70,000 and rs. 1,83,75,000-00 for the financial years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. None of the respondents disputed these figures though they tried to contest the claim of the petitioners on other grounds. Hence it should be presumed that the 2nd respondent Society is making profits from the sale of its products. In fact, the Counsel for the 2nd respondent did not deny this fact during the course of arguments. "

( 3 ) WE do not propose to paraphrase the judgment of the learned single Judge as we are in complete agreement with the view expressed by him. Profit making business does not mean that in each year business, there should be profit by it. It only means that it has the potential to make profit. Such is the mandate of the act as envisaged under Section 10 thereof.

( 4 ) THERE is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document