http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: M/S.  PEIRCE LESLIE & CO., LTD., KOZHIKODE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/03/1960

BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION:  1960 AIR  826            1960 SCR  (3) 194  CITATOR INFO :  D          1967 SC1222  (10)  R          1968 SC 538  (28)  R          1971 SC2521  (18)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Bonus-Full Bench  formula-Variation  of- Unusual risk in business and employment of small  capital-If good grounds for variation-Rehabilitation allowance, Purpose of-Claim  for bonus by small percentage  of  workmen-Whether entire surplus can be taken into account.

HEADNOTE: During the year 1954-1955, the appellant paid a sum  equiva- lent  to 3 months basic wages as bonus to its  monthly  paid clerical  staff.   These  employees  raised  an   industrial dispute claiming an additional bonus equal to 7 months basic wages.   The  Industrial Tribunal to which the  dispute  was referred  awarded additional bonus equal to 5  months  basic wages.   The appellant contended that (i) since the  element of  risk in the business was great and the capital  employed was  small  the  Full Bench formula  had  to  be  materially altered  and rates higher than 6% on paid up capital and  4% on  reserves employed as working capital should  be  allowed (ii) a higher allowance ought to be made for rehabilitation; and  (iii)  the entire surplus ought not to  be  treated  as available for distribution as only a small percentage of the workmen had made the claim for bonus. Held,  that  since the claim for additional bonus  was  made only  by  a  small  percentage of  the  workmen  the  entire available  surplus  could  not be treated  as  available  in distributing bonus to them.  Not only the 882 staff  members who  had raised the claim but II, 247 other workmen as  well had  contributed to the emergence of the surplus.   The  sum still in the hands of the company could not be treated as  a matter only between the company and these present claimants. Indian Hume Pipe Co.,    v. Their Workmen, [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 948.  L.L.I. 357, applied. Return  on invested capital had always to provide  for  pure interest plus compensation for the risks of business.  In  a particular industry where the risk was appreciably less than usual there would be good cause for providing less than 6  %

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

; and in an industry where extraordinary risks were run more than  6%  could reasonably be provided for.   There  was  no unusual risk run by the appellants in their business and  no case was made out for allowing any higher return on the paid up  capital or working capital.  There was no  justification for compensation of the entrepreneur for the fact that  with a small amount of capital considerable profits were earned. As  fixed  capital  was  liable  to  gradual   deterioration reserves had to be created out of profits for replacing  any portion  of  it as soon as it became  too  deteriorated  for efficient use.  It was neces- 195 sary  that the company’s capital fund remained  intact.   An amount reasonably sufficient for the notional requirement of rehabilitation  during the relevant year was deducted  as  a prior  charge  in ascertaining surplus  profits  from  which bonus could be paid.  The basis of the prior charge was  the assumption that rehabilitation was a continuing process  and needed  allotment  from year to year.  But  in  the  present ’case  the  appellant had failed to make out  any  case  for rehabilitation   allowance  in  addition  to  the   ordinary depreciation. Associated Cement Company’s case, [1959] S.C.R. 925,  relied on.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 209/58. Appeal  by special leave from the Award dated September  16, 1957  of  the  Industrial Tribunal  No.  11,  Ernakulam,  in Industrial Dispute No. 34 of 1957. G.   B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur,for the appellants. A.   V.  Viswanatha  Sastri  and M. S. K.  Sastri,  for  the respondents. 1960.  March 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant-M/s.  Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., is a private limited company engaged in various  enterprises mainly  in  South.   India.  It  started  business  in  this country  over a century ago and though it is  registered  in England almost all its activities appear to be carried on in this country.  The principal activities that require mention are  the  business in cashew nuts which  the  Company  sells after roasting raw cashew nuts purchased in this country and in  Africa, and business in coir products and several  other country  produce like ginger, lemon grass oil etc.  A  large portion  of the products in which it trades is  exported  to foreign countries.  Apart from these trading activities  the company is also engaged in agency business including working as  managing agents of many companies.  For many  years  the company as a whole had made good profits, though in some  of its  many lines, losses were incurred.  The company  has  on its  pay  roll a large number of employees  and  apart  from superior  officers in its covenanted and uncovenanted  staff both Indian and European it employs in its various lines  of business a large number of workmen including clerical staff. The 196 clerical staff alone consists of 882 monthly paid employees. For many years the Company has voluntarily paid bonus to all its  employees out of the surplus profits.  To  the  monthly paid  employees  with whom we are concerned in  the  present appeal  the  company  paid during the  year  1954-55  a  sum equivalent  to  three  months’ basic wages  as  bonus.   Not content  with this these employees through their  Union  put

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

forward  a  claim  for  additional  bonus.   The  industrial dispute  thus raised was referred by the Government  to  the Industrial  Tribunal  sitting  at  Coimbatore.   Before  the Tribunal  the workmen claimed an additional bonus  equal  to seven months’ basic wages.  The company’s case was that  the peculiar nature of its activities specially the fact that in its agency business very little capital was employed and the fact that in the cashew business and other produce  business the  element  of risk was unusually treat  justify  material alteration  in the Full Bench Formula for  ascertainment  of the  available  surplus  in  several  respects.   The   main alteration  asked  for before the Tribunal appears  to  have been that rates higher than 6% of paid up capital and 4%  on reserves  employed as working capital should be, allowed  in working the Full Bench Formula in view of the special  risks in  its  business  and  the further  fact  that  its  agency business  requires very little capital.  These  claims  were rejected  by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal also accepted  only partially  the  company’s claims as  regards  rehabilitation allowances  for the year and as regards actual amounts  used as  working capital.  Having arrived on its calculations  at the  figure of pound 55,137 as the available  surplus  after meeting all prior and necessary charges the Tribunal awarded bonus equal to five months’ basic wages in addition to three months’ basic wages already voluntarily paid by the company. In  making  this  distribution  the  Tribunal  rejected  the company’s case that as this claim was raised by only a small percentage  of  the  workmen the  entire  available  surplus should not be treated as available in distributing bonus  to these few workmen. The  first contention urged in appeal before us is that  the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the com- 197 pany’s claim for higher return than usual on paid up capital and  reserves  used  as working  capital.   The  appellants’ counsel  has  taken  us  through  the  evidence,  oral   and documentary, as regards what he’ characterized as the  heavy "  fluctuations " in the price of raw cashew nuts which  the company had to purchase and the price in the foreign  market of the finished goods.  That there is some amount of risk is undoubtedly  true.   We are not convinced however  that  the company’s  business whether in cashew nuts or in  any  other line is attended with such unusual risk as would justify the provision of more than the usual rate of return.  Return  on invested  capital  has always to provide for  pure  interest plus compensation for the risks of the business.  Prevailing interest  in the money market yielded by giltedged  security is  ordinarily  taken to be a fair index of what  should  be considered reasonable as pure interest.  For many years  now this  figure has varied from 3 to 4 per cent.  If  no  risks were involved, this percentage should have been considered a fair  return  on  invested  capital.   It  is  because  most businesses  contain an element of risksome more  some  less- because  of fluctuations, on the one hand in the  prices  of raw  material and on the other hand in the effective  demand for  the  finished  goods-apart  from  cyclical  booms   and depressions  that  an  additional  return  of  2  to  3%  is generally considered necessary to compensate for the  risks. It  is  in view of this that a return of  6%  is  ordinarily considered  to be a fair return on the capital  invested  in the  shape  of paid up capital.  In  a  particular  industry where the risk is appreciably less than usual there will  be good cause for providing less than 6%.  And similarly, in an industry  where  extraordinary risks are run  more  than  6% should reasonably be provided for.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

If  therefore there was reason to think that  the  appellant company’s  contention  that its business was  attended  with unusual risks was correct there would have been good  reason to  allow a higher rate than 6% on the paid up  capital  and also  a higher rate than 4% on the reserves used as  working capital.  We are not however satisfied that any such unusual risk is 198 run.   There is no more speculation in buying raw  nuts  and roasting  the same and selling them than there is,  say,  in buying  raw cotton in the market, spinning  yarn  therefrom, making  it into cloth and selling such cloth, or in  buying. raw  jute,  spinning yarn therefrom weaving  it  into  gunny cloth  and selling the same.  No case for any higher  return on the paid up capital or working capital has been made out by the evidence. Nor  can  the fact that the agency business of  the  company does not require much in the way of capital be considered to be  a reason for allowing a higher rate of return  in  those lines.  If in the agency businesses considerable profits are earned  with a small amount of capital the  contribution  to such  earning by labour including both those at the top  and those  at the bottom is necessarily considerable.  There  is no  justification for compensating the entrepreneur for  the fact  that  with  a small  amount  of  capital  considerable profits are earned. This  brings  us  to  the  appellant’s  case  about   higher rehabilitation  allowance than what has been allowed by  the Tribunal.   The  company put its  claim  for  rehabilitation allowance  at the figure of pound, 31,780 but  the  Tribunal accepted  only  a sum of pound 9 11,250  as  the  reasonable figure  towards  statutory depreciation  and  rehabilitation together.   In support of its claim, the Company produced  a number  of  statements prepared by witnesses claimed  to  be experts   showing  the  replacement  value   of   buildings, machinery, furniture and sundry plants which constituted the fixed capital of the company.  Statements are also  produced showing  the  further expectation of life of each  of  these items.   The  services of a chartered accountant  firm  were also  requisitioned  and we have on the record  a  statement showing  how the figures required for replacement have  been worked out for the various items of buildings, machinery and furniture and sundry plants.  According to Exhibit E-50, the statement on which great reliance was place by the  company, the   total  replacement  value  of  its  assets   was   RS. 1,08,02,330  made  up of Rs. 77,86,350  for  buildings,  Rs. 18,52,320 for plants’ and machinery,’ 199 Rs.  3,63,550  for  furniture and Rs.  8,00,110  for  sundry plants.  Different items of buildings and machinery are  put in separate groups according as the replacement is necessary in view of the residual age, during 1955-60, 1960-65,  1965- 70, 1970-75, 1975-80, 1980-85, 1985-90, 1990-95,  1995-2000, 2000-2005. 2005 is taken as. the last year, as the  residual age is calculated from 1955 and the maximum residual age  is taken  to  be  50 years.  Exhibit E-43  shows  the  detailed calculations on this basis how the sum of Rs. 77,86,335  was arrived at as the replacement cost of buildings.  Exhibit E- 46 is a similar statement in respect of replacement costs of plant  and  machinery.  Ex.  E-29A shows  how  after  taking reserves  for  rehabilitation for the  different  groups  of buildings into consideration, the rehabilitation charge  for the season 1952-53 is worked out at Rs. 19,878 for buildings and the rehabilitation for plant and machinery is worked out as  pound,  5,435.  Details are also given  as  regards  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

calculation  of pound, 4,744 as the rehabilitation costs  to be  provided  for  sundry plants and  pound,  1,723  as  the rehabilitation costs for furniture in the year 1954-55. The  very fact that such care has been taken  in  furnishing details to the Court inclines one prima, facie to accept the correctness   of  these  figures  without   much   scrutiny. Scrutiny is however very much needed before the figures  and the  calculations are ,accepted.  Mention may first be  made of the fact that though it was stated by the witness who  is responsible for the preparation of the replacement costs  of the  machinery  that he obtained quotations  from  different firms,  no such quotation has been placed on record.   That, as  the Tribunal itself recognized, affected very  much  the value  of  these figures.  As however after  mentioning  the infirmities  of the evidence the Tribunal decided to  accept as_a  reasonably  accurate  statement  this  figure  of  Rs. 1,08,02,330  as  the  total replacement value  we  need  not consider  whether we ourselves would have been  prepared  to accept the evidence if the matter was being considered by us in the first instance. 200 A more serious question however is whether the basis adopted by the appellant’s expert for the calculation of this sum as the  replacement costs to be provided over the years in  the application  of the Full Bench Formula can be accepted.   As the  appellant’s expert himself has stated the value he  has given as the rehabilitation cost for any particular building is  on the basis of what would be required to  construct  a, similar building if the existing building was pulled down in 1955.   He  has  proceeded on the same way  as  regards  the machinery  and other assets.  The Tribunal  after  accepting the  figure  of Rs. 1,08,02,330 as the  correct  figure  for replacement  deducted  the  sum which  in  its  opinion  was available  in the reserves towards such  rehabilitation  and then  divided the remainder by 50 as 50 years would  be  the period  that  these buildings and machinery  would  last  if replaced in 1955 by new buildings and new machinery. It  has been urged before us that the Tribunal was wrong  in dividing  the  sum  obtained after the total  amount  to  be provided was ascertained by 50 inasmuch as the figure of Rs. 1,08,02,330  was itself arrived at on the basis of  the  sum that  would have to be provided for the different groups  of buildings  and  the sum to be provided in  1954-55  for  all these  different groups should have been accepted  at  these figures worked out in Exhibit E-29A. It  appears  to  us  that this method  of  arriving  at  the rehabilitation costs to be provided in a particular year  is not  useful and cannot be safely relied upon. To  understand the  fallacy of the method applied we may briefly state  the logic behind the provisions for rehabilitation.  Because the fixed  capital  of  any industry is the  victim  of  gradual deterioration  the prudent businessman creates reserves  out of  his profits so that as soon as any portion of the  fixed capital has become too deteriorated for efficient working it may  be replaced.  The economic welfare of the country as  a whole no less than the interests of the businessman requires that  the company’s capital fund should remain :Intact.   It is for this reason that an amount reasonably sufficient  for the  notional  requirement  of  rehabilitation  during   the relevant 201 year  is deducted as a prior charge in ascertaining  suprlus profits  from  which bonus can be paid.  The  basis  of  the prior  charge  is the assumption that  rehabilitation  is  a continuing process and so needs allotment from year to year.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

That is why it has now been held that if the amount allotted for  a  specific year is not used, it should be  taken  into account in the later year. This  has been recognized in the Full Bench Formula and  has received  the authoritative recognition from this  Court  in numerous cases.  A full discussion of the principle involved can be found in Associated Cement Company’s Case (1).  It is important to note what was pointed out there as regards  the replacement  value  being calculated on the  basis  of  what would be required to replace the fixed assets in question at the  date when replacement is due.  One way of  ascertaining that was to multiply the original cost, by the figure  which would  reflect  the expected rise or fall in prices  at  the date  for  replacement.   After  the  replacement  cost   is ascertained  it is necessary to deduct therefrom the  amount already  lying in reserves for this purpose and then to  see over  what period the balance will have to be found.   There will  no doubt be difficulties in the way of estimating  the replacement  costs in this manner, but that  cannot  justify the  attempt  at  over simplification  by  working  out  the replacement cost on the hypothesis that replacement cost  at the  date of replacement will be the same as on the  present date.  If the prices fall in the meantime too much will have been  set  apart  for rehabilitation,  if  prices  rise  too little.   To take the instance of buildings which  form  the greater  portion of the assets of the appellant company,  it may well be that by the time some of these buildings require replacement, the cost of construction will have become  less than  at  the  present  time by  reason  of  more  efficient production of cement and steel in the country.  So, also the price  of machinery some years later, may well be less  than the price now, by reason of such machinery being produced in our own country.  The layman’s apprehension that prices rise (1)  [1959] S.C.R. 925. 26 202 never  to fall again cannot be accepted as a  correct  basis for calculation of the replacement cost on a future date. The entire basis of the calculation of the replacement  cost by the appellant’s experts is what such costs will be if the building  was pulled down or the machinery scrapped in  1955 and had to be replaced by a new machinery on that date.  His estimate  of  the  replacement  cost  cannot  therefore   be accepted  as  a  sure  basis  for  any  calculation  of  the rehabilitation costs to be provided. It is unnecessary therefore to go into the further  question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the sum of  pound 20,000/- and also another sum of pound  44,760  as available  towards rehabilitation.  We may however  indicate that  if it were necessary to go into the question we  would have probably hesitated to hold that these sums were not  in fact available for rehabilitation. A  strict view of the evidence thus justifies a.  conclusion that  the appellant company has failed to make out any  case for  rehabilitation  allowance in addition to  the  ordinary depreciation.   As  however  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent   did  not  challenge  the  correctness  of   the allowance  of pound,11,250 assessed by the Tribunal  as  the total   allowances   towards  statutory   depreciation   and rehabilitation  together  it would be proper  to  apply  the formula on that basis. The  other question in dispute was as regards the amount  of reserves actually used as working capital.  Out of what  was claimed  by  the  company as reserves  employed  as  working capital  the  Tribunal  disallowed two items.   One  was  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

respect  of  a sum of pound 2,09,339 which appeared  in  the balance-sheet  as provision for taxation liability;  another was  an  item  of  pound 8,250  as  provision  for  proposed dividend  on deferred ordinary shares.  The Tribunal was  of opinion  that the company had not made any attempt to  prove that  these amounts had actually been used in the  business. The  appellant  contends before us that a  scrutiny  of  the balance-sheet  is sufficient to satisfy any one  that  these amounts had actually been employed as working 203 capital.   It is stressed in this connection that  when  the balance-sheets  were put in evidence through  the  company’s officer no challenge as to the correctness of the  statement made  therein  Was  made in  cross-examination.   Though  no direct  challenge  to  the  correctness  of  the  statements appearing  in  the  balancesheets about  the  value  of  the different  assets appears to have been made it is  important to notice that the employer’s witness No. 2 through whom the balancesheets  and  the  profit and  loss  accounts  of  the company were put in evidence was asked in  cross-examination as  regards  the discrepancy between the statements  in  the balance-sheet  E-8  where the bank overdraft  was  shown  as pound1,95,990  and the statement Exhibit E-12  which  showed the  bank  overdraft  in June 1955 as 37-5  lakhs  which  is equivalent to pound 2,75,000.  The difference being of about pound80,000, the witness was asked which is correct, whether E-8  or E-127 and when the witness answered that  both  were correct,  he  was  asked "how".  His answer-was  "I  do  not know". It  may be that there is a satisfactory explanation of  this difference  but  the evidence on record  does  not  disclose this.   When there remains prima facie such  discrepancy  as regards the very important figure as regards bank  overdraft the Tribunal would well be justified in refusing to base any conclusion  on the valuation of different assets  as  stated therein. There is apart from this the important fact that the company itself  does  not claim that whatever appears to be  on  the asset side over and above the paid up capital has come  from the reserves.  Exhibit E-30 is the statement prepared by the company’s  Chartered Accountant to show  "Reconciliation  of working  capital as on 30th June, 1958." It arrives  at  the figure of pound6,05,564 as the working capital by  deducting from the current assets as per balance-sheet as on June  30, 1955,  six  out of nine items under "Current  liabilities  & provisions",-3  items  not  deducted  are  those  under  (1) liability for taxation other than U.K. Income-tax,(2)  proposed dividend on deferred ordinary shares and (3) capital profits on proposed distribution.  The obvious reason for  deducting the  six  items  from the current assets to  arrive  at  the working capital is that 204 these items in the balance-sheets under current  liabilities and provision would have to be met during the year out of  a portion   of  the  current  assets,  which   portion   would accordingly not be available for use as working capital.  If that  is the case as regards the other items  under  current liabilities  and provisions it is not clear why that  should not  also  be the case as regards  the  current  liabilities under "liabilities for taxation other than U.K.  Income-tax" and  under "proposed dividend on deferred ordinary  shares". In  the  absence  of evidence to the contrary  there  is  no ground  for thinking that these current liabilities had  not also  to be met out of the current assets during  the  year. No  such  evidence  has  been  produced.   The  Tribunal  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

therefore  right in our opinion in rejecting  the  company’s claim  that  these  amounts were also  employed  as  working capital. As regards the other prior charges there is no dispute.  The Tribunal applying the Full Bench Formula on the basis of the different  findings hold after deducting the  bonus  already paid  voluntarily by the company that the company had  still in its hand a sum of pound55,137 out of which it could pay a reasonable amount to these workmen. When  deciding  how  much out  of  this  pound956,137  could reasonably be paid as additional bonus to these workmen  the Tribunal had to consider the contention raised on behalf  of the appellant-company that it would be unfair-to ignore  the fact  that  not these staff members alone but  11,247  other workmen  as well have contributed to the emergence  of  this surplus.   The appellant’s argument was that  staff  members who have raised this dispute should not be allowed to  steal an advantage over the numerous other workers of the  company and  that just as results of the different branches  of  the company  have been considered as a whole in arriving at  the figure of available surplus it is just and proper that these workmen  who have raised the dispute should be given only  a fair  share out of that portion of the surplus which may  be considered  properly  payable  to all  the  workmen  of  the company.   In  dealing with this question the  Tribunal  has said 205 "  But  the fortune of the 11,247 workers  depend  upon  the trading results of the department in which they are working; the bonus of the workers is decided compartment-wise and not on the basis of the overall profits of the company.   Cashew workers  are given bonus on the basis of the cashew  depart- ment  profits and not on the basis of the total  profits  of the  company.  The staff members are transferable  from  one department  to  another  and  from  one  branch  to  another branch." We  are not able to understand how in spite of the  way  the company’s  balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts  have been kept the different departments of the company could  be treated separately for the purposes of bonus.  The mere fact that  the  company has actually done so does not  make  such distribution  right.  Obviously if cashew workers  would  in fact be entitled to a larger bonus on the overall results of the  company they have been unfairly treated by the  company in  having  been given lesser bonus on the basis  of  cashew department profits.  It is urged on behalf of  the,appellant that  the  fact  that the workmen  other  than  these  staff members have got less than they would have been entitled  to does not justify the grant of a larger share to the  present workmen  than what they would be entitled to if those  other workmen had been given a fair share. This  Court had to deal with a somewhat similar position  in Indian  Hume Pipe Co. v. Their Workmen(1).  The  respondents there  were  workmen  only  of  the  Wadala  factory.    The appellant  had however paid to various workmen elsewhere  as and by way of bonus varying between 4% and 29% of the  basic wages  for the year in question.  It was clear that the  sum of  Rs.  1,23,138/only  had  been paid  in  full  and  final settlement  to the workmen in some of the factories and  the bonus  calculations on an all-India basis would work to  the advantage  of the appellant, in so far as they would  result in  saving  to the appellant of the difference  between  the amounts  to which those workmen would be entitled to on  the basis  of the all-India figures adopted by the tribunal  and the amounts actually

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

(1)  [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 948. 206 paid  to  them as a result of  agreements,  conciliation  or adjudication.  On behalf of the respondents it was therefore contended that the calculations should be made after  taking into account the savings thus effected:.  Dealing with  this contention  this Court observed : " We are afraid we cannot  accept this contention.  If  this contention  was  accepted, the respondents before  us  would have  an advantage over those workmen with whom  settlements have been made and would get larger amounts by way of  bonus merely by reason of the fact that the appellant had  managed to  settle the claims of those workmen ,at  lesser  figures. If  this  contention of the respondents was  pushed  to  its logical extent, it would also mean that in the event of  the non-fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the tribunal  in the  award of bonus herein bringing in savings in the  hands of the appellant, the respondents would be entitled to  take advantage of those savings also and should be awarded larger amounts by way of bonus, which would really be the result of the  claimants entitled to the same not receiving  it  under certain  circumstances-an  event which would  be  purely  an extraneous one and unconnected with the contribution of  the respondents   towards  the  gross  profits  earned  by   the appellant.    The   tribunal  was,   therefore,   right   in calculating the bonus on an all-India basis." Though  in  the present case there has been  no  settlement" strictly  speaking  with the other workers  in  the  various branches, the considerations which weighed with the Court in the  above  case are fully applicable to this case  and  the Tribunal must be held to have committed an error in treating the  sum still in the hands of the company as a matter  only between the company and these present claimants. In  deciding  what  relief may reasonably be  given  to  the appellant  company in view of this error in  the  Tribunal’s approach to the question of distribution of the amount still available,  we have however to take into account two  errors which  have been made by the Tribunal in this connection  in favour   of  the  appellant.   One  of  these  is  that   in distributing the available 207 surplus  the  Tribunal  omitted to  take  into  account  the important fact that a sum of no less than  pound1,10,000/has been capitalised out of the reserves at the beginning of the year.  The second error was that the Tribunal in saying that after  paying  8 months’ bonus there is a balance  of  pound 34,397 with the employer, omitted to take into consideration the  fact that the company would also have the benefit of  a large  amount as income-tax rebate in respect of  the  bonus paid to its clerical staff. Taking all these facts into consideration we are of  opinion that  a  fair  order would be to award to  the  staff  bonus equivalent  to  3  months’ basic wages in  addition  to  the amount already paid voluntarily. We therefore allow the appeal in part and in modification of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal award to the staff of  M/s.   Peirce Leslie Co., Ltd., bonus  equivalent  to  3 months’  basic  wages  in addition  to  the  amount  already voluntarily paid by the company.  There will be no order  as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.