The main legal point established in the judgment is that bonus payments can be considered as customary bonus, contractual bonus, or part of deferred wages, entitling the employees to receive the bonus payments as claimed.

T. Arulraj, Presiding Officer

1. This dispute arising out of a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of India in Order No. L-12012/14/81-D.II(A), dated 15th June, 1982 of the Ministry of Labour is in respect of nonpayment of bonus as usual from 31st December, 1975.

2. According to the allegations in the separate claim statements of State Bank of India Staff Union, Madras, State Bank Employees' Union, Madras and State Bank Workmen Staff Union, Madras, the Imperial Bank of India which was the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent-Bank used to close their books and accounts and declare dividends at the close of the each half year ending on 30th June and 31st December each year. After the close of the first half in 1943, and long Ix-fore the advent of concept of honus in industrial law, the Imperial Bank paid bonus equivalent to one month's basic pay drawn by them on 30th June, 1943 and also 31st December, 1943 to its employees and the Respondent-Bank continued to pay the same when it succeeded Imperial Hank in 1955 without break in an unbroken change and irrespective of an profit; or the salaries of the employees, in spite of prohibition under Section 10 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 before the amendment in 1956, In 19/17, the calculated amount of bonus payable to each calculate was merged with the respective basic pay with consequential increase in Dearness Allowance and superannuation benefits, Even after the passing of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, this mode of payment of bonus every half year was not toothed. In had, Section 17 of the Payment of Bonus Vth ideas that in case where the employer had paid any or customary bonus to an employee the same shall be adjusted against the bonus payable under the Act. This section has thus recognised the right of the employees to receive customary bonus debtors the profit sharing bonus. It has thus become an implied condition of service and it is more or less in the nature of deferied part of wages paid in lump sum on two occasions in a year irrespective of profits or dividends. It is not ex gratia payment and it is not titled in the pattern of profit sharing bonus envisaged by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. In other words, not less than two months basic pay was paid to employees in all the years right from 1943 upto the year 1975 and or the first time departure was made in 1975. Under the Payment of Bonus Act, profit sharing bonus is paid after the close of the accounting year, based on the allocable surplus, It is never paid in terns of basic wages. It cannot be therefore fitted in under the provisions of the said Payment of Bonus Act. For the first hall year, ending 30th June, 1975, the first Respondent-Bank paid the usual one month basic pay as drawn by the employees on 30th June, 1975 as bonus to all the employees. On 25th August, 1975 the Central Government issued ordinance of 1975 called "The Payment of Bonus Amendment Ordinance" inter alia removing the Bunks from the purview of the Bonus Act. Hence, the first Respondent has not paid bonus for the half year ending with 31st December, 1975, but only ex gratia payment at V or the year ending 31st December 1975 alter adjusting the one month's basic pay already paid and the payment is made only to the employees who are eligible under the Payment o( Bonus Act and the employees, who are drawing salary, not exceeding Rs. 1600/- per mensem. under these circumstances, the action of the Management in stopping such payment with (.fleet from second half of the year 1975 is not based on any valid grounds or reason. The State Bank Employees Union will add that the Respondent has not given any notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to withdraw the right of the workmen to receive customary bonus and hence their action is illegal, or all or any of these reasons therefore it is prayed that the Respondent should be directed to pay all Award Staff, two months' b