JUDGMENT Per Gajendragadkar, J.:-This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the United Salt Works and Industries, Ltd., Kandla, and the respondents, its workmen. The dispute arose out of a demand made by the respondents in regard to bonus for the year 1954-55. The respondents claimed that the bonus of 1/6 of the wages during the said year should be paid to them. The appellant denied this claim. The matter then went before the conciliation officer at Rajkot and during the conciliation proceedings the parties agreed to refer the dispute to private arbitration tinder S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly the dispute was referred to private arbitration of Sri Antany and Sri Vaidya. The arbitrators considered the matter in dispute between the parties and directed that bonus to the extent of 1/6 of the total wages of the employees should be paid by the appellant to the respondents. The bonus thus ordered to be paid is to the extent of Rs. 1,11,190. In its present appeal filed with special leave of this Court the appellant contends that the award of this amount is not justified as a result of the working of the Full Bench formula. It appears that at the trial the appellant contended that its works at Aden and Kandla were so integrally connected that they should be treated as one for the purpose of working the bonus formula. There was also a dispute as to the amount of working capital on which the appellant was entitled to claim a reasonable return. These contentions have been rejected by the arbitrators. They have held that the works at Aden and Kandla are separate and distinct manufacturing units without any inter-dependence or integration, and the arbitrators have permitted only a part of the working capital for the purpose of entertaining the appellant s claim for a return on the working capital. The appellant disputes the correctness of these conclusions. For the purpose of the present appeal, however, we do not propose to consider the said contentions because, in our opinion, even taking the figures as worked out by the arbitrators the award of Rs. 1,11,190 as bonus does not appear to be justified. The calculations made in the award in Such. C show that the available surplus is found to be Rs. 88,434. 1,11,190 as bonus does not appear to be justified. The calculations made in the award in Such. C show that the available surplus is found to be Rs. 88,434. What the award has purported to do is to add to this balance Rs. 48,645 as refund on the amount of bonus ultimately awarded. We have repeatedly held that this process of calculation is not justified, Once you reach the figure of the available surplus then you have to decide how much out of the available surplus should be awarded to the employees as bonus, and in doing so the claims of the industry, of the shareholders and of the employees have to be fairly and justly adjusted. Following that procedure we must enquire how much it would be fair to award to the employees out of Rs. 88,434. In our opinion it should be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 60,000. If Rs. 80,000 for instance were awarded as bonus that would leave with the employer roughly Rs. 56,000 including the rebate to which he would be entitled. Therefore, we would set aside the award and direct that one month s wages should be paid to each of the respondents by way of bonus for the year in dispute. We understand that this would mean something above Rs. 60,000. We wish to make it clear that the bonus thus awarded to be paid is payable to all the employees of the appellant whose total wages are shown at p. 12 of the paper book as Rs. 7,24,680. All those employees whose wages are shown in this total wage bill are entitled to claim bonus from the appellant. These employees would include those whose names appear on the pay roll as well as those who are working under the mukadams or on contract system. This position is not disputed before us but in order to avoid any doubt or difficulty we have thought it necessary to make it clear. In the result the award under appeal is modified and bonus is directed to be paid by the appellant to the respondents as mentioned above. In the circumstances of this case there would be no order as to costs. For Citation : (1961) 2 Lab LJ 93 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.