Mody, J. - (1.) The petitioners are the Royal Western India Turf Club, Ltd. and respondent 3 are a union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. The petitioners conduct horse races. The races are held between the months of November and April in Bombay and between July and October at Poona. For it business the petitioners engage employees, who are in their permanent service. But besides those permanent employees, the petitioners employ other persons temporarily for working on race days. The permanent employees are not members of the respondent 3 union, but only such temporary employees are members of that union. Those employees made a demands for bonus for the year 1956-57. The petitioners resisted that demand. There were certain conciliation proceedings held, but the same were infructuous. Ultimately, the respondent 2 which is the State of Maharashtra, made an order dated 25 April, 1960, under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring the said dispute about bonus for adjudication to the respondent 1,who constituted the industrial tribunal. The respondent 1 thereafter held adjudication proceedings before it and ultimately made its award dated 16 February, 1961. By that award, the respondent 1 directed payment of bonus in a particular manner and at a particular of bonus in a particular manner and at a particular rate to the temporary employees of the petition. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging that award.
(2.) Mr. Zaveri, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has urged three contentions in support of his challenge to the said award. He has contended that looking to the nature of the employment of these employees they cannot claim bonus if bonus is understood in its correct sense. Secondly, he has contended that even if bonus is capable of being claimed or paid to these employees, the award does not disclose that the necessary material was placed before the respondent 1 or has been considered by the respondent 1 in its award which would justify payment of any bonus. The third contentions urged is that the respondent 1 has in its award taken an extraneous circumstance into consideration, namely, that there was a practice of the petitioners to pay bonus to the employees, even though they might be temporary employees till 1951 and that the consideration of this circumstances is so mixed up with the others that it cannot be separated, and that therefore the award must be held to be invalid. Based on the said first contention, Mr. Zaveri contended that as the demand was for a payment, which could not be said to be bonus and as what the respondent 1 has awarded by its award is called bonus, but in fact is not bonus, the respondent 1 had no jurisdiction in the matter. Based on his said second contention, Mr. Zaveri contended that the respondent 1 has arrived at the conclusion as embodied in the said award, without any material before it and that the award cannot therefore, be sustained, and is bad in law. Based on the third contention Mr. Zaveri contended that as the extraneous circumstance must have affected the mind of the respondent 1 when it made its award and as the extraneous circumstance cannot be separated, the whole award is vitiated.
(3.) In Muir Mills Company, Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur [1955 - I L.L.J. 1], the Court has enunciated the following test as to what is bonus : "There are, however, two conditions which have to be satisfied before a demand for bonus can be justified and they are : (1) when wages fall short of the living standard and (2) the industry makes huge profits part of which are due to the contribution which the workmen make in increasing production.";