DUTTA, C. J.: This is a writ petition filed by the Assam Branch of the Indian Tea Association. The petitioner's case is as follows. A large number of tea gar­dens in Assam, are members of the Indian Tea Association which is an Association of the employers having a Branch in Assam known as the Assam Branch of the Indian Tea Association with its head office at Dikom. This Association on be­half of the member gardens in Assam con­cluded an agreement with the workmen of the said gardens (opposite party No. 2) on 7-10-55 in respect of the payment of bonus to the clerical and medical staff and the artisans for the years 1954 to 1958. In January, 1956, an agreement had been reached in Delhi regarding bonus to labour. It related to the claims for payment of bonus for the years 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956. It was agreed by the parties that in respect of the claims fm the years 1953 and 1954 a lump sum payment will be made on certain condi­tions. For the years 1955 and 1956, it was agreed that the labour bonus would be given on the basis of zonal area pros­perity of the year compared with 1954 and the resultant co-efficient applied to the basic of lump sum agreed for the years 1953 and 1954. Thus the bonus payable to labour had no relation to the profits of the individual companies and it was a lump sum payment in addition to the wage of a worker and in the nature of a fixed charge. In determining the profits for payment of bonus to the mem­bers of the clerical and medical staff and the artisans under the agreement dated 7-10-55, the bonus payable to the labourers under the Delhi agreement of 1956 was accounted as costs and the said amounts were deducted from the amount of pro­fits. The Union however, took the stand that amounts paid as bonus to the labour­ers could not be deducted from the gross profits for the purpose of calculat­ing the profits for payment of bonus to the clerical and medical staff and the artisans. 2. The Union however, took the stand that amounts paid as bonus to the labour­ers could not be deducted from the gross profits for the purpose of calculat­ing the profits for payment of bonus to the clerical and medical staff and the artisans. 2. A dispute thus having arisen, the State Government referred it to the Industrial Tribunal, Assam for adjudication on the following points: (i) Whether the managements of Tea Gardens in Assam under the membership of Indian Tea Association are justified in deducting amounts paid as bonus to workers pursuant to an agreement effect­ed in New Delhi on 8th January, 1956 from the amounts of gross profits for the purpose of paying bonus to the members of the staff? (ii) If not, to what relief are the mem­bers of the staff entitled 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the bonus paid to the labourers under the Delhi agreement was not related to any profit, but in fact was a mere lump sum payment being a fixed charge in addition to the wages of the workers. Such bonus, according to the petitioner, was a mere revenue charge. The Union on the other hand, submitted that the Full Bench formula evolved by the Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in The Millowners' Association, Bombay v. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay. 1950-2 Lab LJ 1247 (LATI-Bom) would apply and that the payment made to the labourers was bonus which could not be deducted to arrive at the profit for payment of bonus to the clerical and medical staff and the artisans. The learn­ed Tribunal held that the above for­mula did apply and that the said formula did not provide labour bonus as a prior; charge for deduction from the gross pro­fit to arrive at the available surplus. The short point that we have to decide is whether the payment made as bonus to the labourers is to be deducted to arrive at the profit on the basis of which bonus has to be paid to the clerical and medical staff and the artisans. The short point that we have to decide is whether the payment made as bonus to the labourers is to be deducted to arrive at the profit on the basis of which bonus has to be paid to the clerical and medical staff and the artisans. The Full Bench formula was considered by the Supreme Court in several cases and in Jalan Trad­ing Co., Private Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691 the Supreme Court explained the formula as follows: "These problems were for the first time elaborately considered by this Court in the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Its Workmen. 1959 SCR 925 = ( AIR 1959 SC 967 ). Since that decision nume­rous cases have come before this Court In which the basic formula has been ac­cepted with some elaboration. The prin­cipal incidents of the formula as evolved by the decisions of this Court may be briefly stated: Each year for which bonus is claimed is a self-contained unit and bonus will be computed on the profits of the establishment in that year. In giving effect to the formula as a general rule from the gross profits determined after debiting the wages and dearness allow­ances paid to the employees, and other items of expenditure against total re­ceipts, as disclosed by the profit and loss account are accepted, unless it appears that the debit entries are not supported by recognized accountancy practice or are posted mala fide with the object of reducing gross profits. Debit items which are wholly extraneous to or unrelated to the determination of trading profits are ignored. Similarly income which is whol­ly extraneous to the conduct of the busi­ness e.g. book profits on account of re­valuation of assets may not be included in the gross profits. Against the gross profits so ascertained the following items are charged as prior debits: (1) Deprecia­tion: such depreciation being only the normal or notional depreciation; (2) Income-tax payable for the accounting year on the balance remaining after deducting statutory depreciation. The income-tax to be deducted is not the actual amount, but the notional amount of tax at the rate for the year, even if on assessment no tax is determined to be payable. For the purpose of the Full Bench Formula income-tax at the rate provided must be deducted, but in the computation of income-tax statutory de­preciation under the Indian Income-tax Act only may be allowed. For the purpose of the Full Bench Formula income-tax at the rate provided must be deducted, but in the computation of income-tax statutory de­preciation under the Indian Income-tax Act only may be allowed. (3) Return on paid-up capital at 6 per cent and on reserves used as working capital at a lower rate. In the Associated Cement Companies' case, 1959 SCR 925 = AIR 1959 SC967it was suggested that this rate should be 2 per cent, in later cases 4 per cent on the working capital was regard­ed as appropriate. (4) Expenditure for rehabilitation which includes replacement and modernisation of plant, machinery and buildings, but not for expansion of building, or additions to the machinery." 4. It is quite obvious that the payment made to the labour under the Delhi agreement by the various tea companies was not based on the above formula at all. In respect of 1953 and 1954 lump sum payments were made. As regards 1955 and 1956, a particular formula was adopted by agreement The tea garden areas of the State were divided into dif­ferent zones. Then ten companies were selected in each zone by drawing of lots and the bonus payable to labour was fix­ed on the basis of profits made by the said companies. Thus, the amounts paid had no relation to the profit made by a particular tea company but were calculat­ed on the basis of zonal prosperity. Ac­cording to the Bombay Full Bench for­mula, it is the profit of a particular esta­blishment which is the basis for the pay­ment of bonus. This being so, it can be said that the payment made to the labour according to the Delhi agreement is not bosius within the meaning of the formula. It is a mere ad hoc payment to labour. In laving down the basis for payment of certain sums in the Delhi agreement the Bombay Full Bench formula was not followed. Therefore it appears that whereas the payment made to labour was not calculated according to the said for­mula, the ad hoc payment mentioned above is treated as bonus for the conten tion that according to the formula bonus cannot be a prior charge. The formula can­not be applied for one purpose viz. to hold that bonus cannot be a prior charge, when it was abandoned for another pur­pose viz., to arrive at what was bonus. The formula can­not be applied for one purpose viz. to hold that bonus cannot be a prior charge, when it was abandoned for another pur­pose viz., to arrive at what was bonus. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, in the passage cited above, gross profit has to be arrived at after deducting wages and dearness allowances paid to the employees and "other items of expenditure". We think the ad hoc payment that was made under the Delhi agreement to the labour, has to be deducted as "other expendi­ture". As such the answer to the first question in the reference to the Labour, Tribunal must be answered accordingly. 5. In the result, this petition must be allowed and the award is set aside. The rule is made absolute. There will be no. order as to costs. 6. K. C. SEN, J.:I agree. Petition allowed.