JUDGMENT : Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on engineering business. There was dispute between the appellant and its workmen with respect to various matters, which were referred for adjudication by the Government of Bombay to a tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) in June, 1958. Six matters were included in the reference; but in the present appeal we are only concerned with three, namely, (1) bonus for the year 1956, (2) sick leave, and (3) gratuity. It is not necessary to set out the respective cases of the parties in this behalf as they will appear from what we say when we deal with the matters one by one. Re 1 (Bonus) 2. The workmen claimed profit bonus at the rate of six months' wages. The appellant had paid 15 days' wages as bonus already and resisted the claim for any further bonus. The tribunal has awarded four months' wages as bonus to the workmen. It may be mentioned that in the appellant firm consolidated wages are paid and there is no separation between basic wages and dearness allowance. Normally, bonus is awarded on the basis of basic wages; but as in the appellant firm it is not possible to separate basic wages and dearness allowance, the bonus will have to be awarded on the basis of consolidated wages. It must however be borne in mind that consolidated wages are much higher than basic wages and four months bonus on the basis of consolidated wages will work out to much more than four months' bonus on basic wages. 3. It is now well-settled that profit bonus has to be calculated in accordance with the decision of this Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Workmen, (1959) SCR 925. The dispute between the parties related to the remuneration to be paid to the two partners of the firm. It may be mentioned that these partners work whole time for the firm with the result that there is considerable saving in expenditure which would otherwise have to be incurred if what they are doing is done by managers or sales agents. The appellant therefore claimed Rs 800 per month for each partner as his remuneration. This was resisted by the workmen. The appellant therefore claimed Rs 800 per month for each partner as his remuneration. This was resisted by the workmen. The tribunal has allowed Rs 500 per month as remuneration for each partner. The appellant claims that the tribunal should have allowed Rs 800 per month. We do not think it necessary in this appeal to decide whether the partners should have been allowed Rs 800 per month. We shall accept the figure allowed by the tribunal for the purpose of the present appeal with this observation that this amount will be open to reconsideration in later years if there is dispute as to bonus. 4. The next item of dispute relates to return on capital. In its award, the tribunal decided to allow nine per cent as a special case. But when it calculated the figures it has only allowed six per cent. The appellant therefore contends that it should have allowed nine per cent as held by it in the body of the award and that would have reduced the amount of available surplus. There is force in this contention, and the figures worked out by the tribunal will have to be corrected accordingly, particularly as there is no Appeal before us by the workmen. The final figures will therefore stand as below: In Rupees Gross Profits 41,976 Deduct - Normal depreciation 2106 Balance 89,870 Deduct - Partners' remunerations 12,000 Balance 27,870 Deduct - Income tax on Rs 27,870 4746 Balance 23,124 Deduct - Super tax 813 Balance 22,311 Deduct - 9% return on capital 4500 Balance 17,811 Deduct - 4% return on working capital 1200 Available surplus 16,611 5. Out of this available surplus the tribunal has awarded four months' consolidated wages as bonus amounting to Rs 13,332; it has made no allowance for half months' wages already paid as bonus to the workmen by the appellant, which comes to about Rs 1800. The amount thus allowed by their tribunal as bonus is in our opinion unreasonable and cannot be upheld. This Court has already held that there are three partners entitled to share in the available surplus, namely, (i) the industry, (ii) share-holders (partners in this case), and (iii) workmen. It is in evidence that the appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs 45,000 from the Government for the purpose of the business and has to pay it back in instalments of Rs 5000 per year. It is in evidence that the appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs 45,000 from the Government for the purpose of the business and has to pay it back in instalments of Rs 5000 per year. That liability has also to be taken into account in dividing the available surplus between the three sharers in it. If the amount allowed by the tribunal stands there will be nothing left for the partners and the appellant would not even have enough to pay the annual instalment of the debt. In the circumstances we are of opinion that two months consolidated wages, which will come to about Rs 6666 should be paid as bonus for 1956. This will include 15 days' wages as bonus already distributed by the appellant, so that the appellant will pay an additional bonus of 1= months' consolidated wages only. The award of the tribunal is modified accordingly. Re 2 (Sick leave) 6. The contention on behalf of the appellant in this connection is that the tribunal was wrong in allowing 25 days sick leave when the demand was only for 15 days. It is clear from the order of reference that the tribunal was asked to consider whether the workmen should get fully paid sick leave of 15 days in each year. It was consequently not open to the tribunal to give 25 days sick leave in a year as it has done. The appellant's contention therefore must succeed and the sick leave allowed would be reduced to 15 days per year. The other conditions attached to the award of sick leave will be as directed by the tribunal. Re. 3 (Gratuity) 7. The workmen's demand for gratuity was opposed by the appellant on two grounds. The first was that it was not in a sufficiently strong financial position to bear the burden of gratuity. The second was that no gratuity scheme is in force in that region in similar concerns. The tribunal has considered both these grounds. With respect to the financial position, it has held that on the whole the financial position of the appellant is sound and it can bear the burden of the scheme of gratuity which it has ordered. It may be mentioned that contributory provident fund has been introduced in the appellant firm since 1958. The tribunal has pointed out that that is not enough. It may be mentioned that contributory provident fund has been introduced in the appellant firm since 1958. The tribunal has pointed out that that is not enough. In any case two retiral benefits can be allowed if the financial position of a business justifies them. We agree with the tribunal that the financial position of the appellant justifies a second retiral benefit, particularly when the scheme of contributory provident fund was brought into force only in 1958. As to the other contention, namely, that gratuity schemes are not in force in similar other concerns, the tribunal has rightly pointed out that the proper way to look at the problem is that if a gratuity scheme can be introduced in a concern taking into account its financial position it should not be refused simply because no gratuity scheme is in force in similar other concerns. So far as other concerns are concerned gratuity schemes can also be introduced there later, if there is demand by the workmen and if the financial position justifies it. 8. As for the scheme itself, we have looked into it and are of opinion that it is in accordance with the schemes which are being introduced in the recent past for the purpose of gratuity by tribunals all over India. In the circumstances we are of opinion that there is no cause for interference with the order of the tribunal with respect to the gratuity scheme which it has ordered to be introduced in the appellant firm. 9. We therefore partly allow the appeal and modify the award of the tribunal with respect to bonus and sick leave as indicated above. The appeal is dismissed so far as the gratuity scheme is concerned. In the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.