Vaidialingam, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award dated February 12, 1967 of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in case No. VIII-81 of 1960, directing the appellant to pay to its workmen for the accounting year ended June 30, l959, bonus at the rate of four months' wages. For the reasons given in this order, it is regrettable that there has to be a second remand to the Tribunal for proper adjudication.
(2.) For the accounting year ended June 30, 1959, the appellant offered to pay two months' basic wages as bonus to its workmen, but this offer was not accepted. But it is seen that later on the workmen, under the advice of their union, received the amount under protest. As the workmen were claiming a larger amount for bonus, the Government of West Bengal by its order dated March 30, 1960, referred for adjudication to the concerned Industrial Tribunal the question- " Bonus for the accounting year ended June 30, 1959, payable in 1959". On July 20, 1962, the Industrial. Tribunal, after a consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that there was no available surplus for payment of bonus for the year in question; and as such it held that the workmen were not entitled to receive any profit bonus for the accounting year ended June 30, 1959. The workmen, dissatisfied with this award, came to this Court, by special leave, in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1964. The first contention that was raised by the workmen before this Court related to the Tribunal's decision on the question of Puja bonus. We are not concerned with that aspect. The second and the third contention are relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The second contention was that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the life of the machinery at twenty years instead of thirty years. The third contention was that in calculating rehabilitation, the Tribunal should have taken into account the accumulated depreciation and other reserves available before arriving at the proper sum to be allowed to the employer every year for rehabilitation.
(3.) This Court, by its judgment dated April 12, 1965, allowed the appeal of the workmen, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to it for recalculating the amount of rehabilitation, in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. Liberty was given to the parties to adduce further evidence, if necessary on the said question. It was also made clear that the rest of the calculations, except rehabilitation, will stand and that the Tribunal was to go into the only question of rehabilitation and find out if there was any surplus available after meeting the annual rehabilitation charge.;