An organization running on commercial lines and generating profit cannot escape liability under the Act by contending that it was not established for the purpose of profit. The dominant purpose of the organization is crucial in determining its liability to pay bonus.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

1. The present judgment shall decide Letter Patents Appeal filed by the appellant Hospital to impugn the judgment dated 02.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) bearing no. 17938/2004 titled as Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute V Workmen & others upholding the Award dated 28.04.2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Award") passed by the Industrial Tribunal No II (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Industrial Dispute No 11/1999 titled as M/s Shri Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute V Workmen represented by Shri Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital Karamchari Union whereby the appellant Hospital was declared to be not exempted from payment of bonus under section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi referred a dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication arising between the management of the appellant Hospital and its workmen represented by Shri Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital Karamchari Union (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Union") vide reference bearing no.F.24 (2068)/99- Lab/19704-08 dated 13.05.1999 with the following terms of reference: Whether the workmen are entitled to the payment of Bonus for the year 1997-98, and if so, what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

3. The respondent Union submitted the statement of claim before the Tribunal wherein primarily stated that the appellant Hospital was being managed by a Trust under the name and style of Shri Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust involving several eminent persons and was providing free and charitable medical services to the people. However, the management of appellant Hospital since 1990 has been converted into a commercial venture. The management of the appellant Hospital did not pay the bonus to its workers for the year 1997- 1998. The respondent Union lodged a complaint dated 22.10.1998 before the concerned authority under the Act which was got delayed due to management of the appellant Hospital. The complaint was converted into an industrial dispute. The workmen were denied bonus for the year 1997-1998 illegally by the management of the appellant Hospital. The workmen employed in the appellant Hospital are entitled for the bonus for the year 1997-98. The respondent Union being aggrieved filed the writ petition bearing no. 17938/2004 titled as Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute V Workmen & others with prayer that an award be passed for declaring the workers to be entitled for the bonus for the year 1997-1998 and the management of the appellant Hospital be directed to pay the bonus to the workers along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of entitlements of the bonus till the date of realisation.

4. The appellant Hospital filed its written statement and in preliminary objections contended that the reference was bad in law because the demands were not served on the management of the appellant Hospital. The respondent Union is not competent to represent the workmen. No dispute is espoused by the respondent Union. The appellant Hospital is not an industry. The employees of the appellant Hospital are not regular members of the respondent Union. The provisions of the Act are not applicable to the appellant Hospital as the appellant Hospital falls within the exception. The management had received a notice from Inspecting Officer of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi which was replied by the management vide letter dated 19.11.1998. The workmen are not entitled for any bonus.

5. The Tribunal vide order dated 04.02.2000 framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the union, which has filed the statement of claim, is competent to represent the workmen of the management? If not, its effect. (OPW)

2. Whether the cause of the workmen h