ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thakur Ganga Prasad Singh has challenged the validity of an order dated 15th July 1969 passed by the Labour Court at Allahabad dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Act 1947 for determining the amount of money due to the petitioner- 2. The facts which led to the filing of the present petition are necessary to be stated:- 3. The petitioner was employed as a Godown Keeper by the Imperial Bank of India now known as State Bank of India. An industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. The Tribunal gave an award which was published in the Government of India Gazette dated 5th June 1954. Under the award, the petitioner's dismissal was held to be null and void and his reinstatement was directed. The Tribunal, however, awarded the Petitioner only three months' salary by way of compensation for the period prior to his reinstatement. The employers filed an appeal against the award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the employers' appeal before the Supreme Court, an interim order was obtained on 19th July 1954 as a result of which the petitioner was not reinstated into service as the implementation of the award was staved. The appeal before the Supreme Court, however, failed and thereafter the petitioner was reinstated on 24th may 1961. The employers implemented the award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and they also paid him full salary for the period between 19th July 1954 to 23rd may 1961, the date when their appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The petitioner was however, not Paid bonus for the period between 1954 to 1961 but salary had been paid to him for the said period although the employers had paid bonus to other employees during the said period. The petitioner made an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the Labour Court Lucknow with a prayer that the employers be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2787.00 on account of bonus money to which he was entitled. The petitioner made an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the Labour Court Lucknow with a prayer that the employers be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2787.00 on account of bonus money to which he was entitled. A case was registered and the adjudication proceedings were taken before the Labour Court subsequently the case was transferred to the Labour Court at Allahabad. 4. The State Bank (the employers) contested the petitioner's claim. Their main contention was that the petitioner was not entitled to bonus as he was not in the service of the State Bank during the Period for which bonus had been claimed by him. The Labour Court accepted the employer's contention, therefore, it rejected the petitioner's application as in its opinion the petitioner was not entitled to get any bonus for the period in question as he had not Contributed at all towards the production of the employers during the aforesaid period. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court on the ground that it has committed a patent error of law in refusing to award the bonus to the petitioner to which he was legally entitled. It has been contended that after the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and to work but the employers obtained an interim order from the Supreme Court and prevented the petitioner from joining the service and discharging his duties in the service of the Bank. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to wages as well as to all other benefits which had been given by the employers to the other employees. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that bonus could not be claimed as a matter of right prior to 1965 and the Labour Court has given good reasons for rejecting the petitioner's claim which could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has further urged that there has been great delay in raising the claim for bonus and, therefore, the petitioner's claim should be rejected on that ground. Lastly, he has urged that there is no error apparent on the race of the record in the order of the Labour Court. 6. Bonus is cash payment in addition to wages as a stimulus to extra work and efficiency by the labour. Lastly, he has urged that there is no error apparent on the race of the record in the order of the Labour Court. 6. Bonus is cash payment in addition to wages as a stimulus to extra work and efficiency by the labour. Prior to enactment of payment of Wages Act 1965, there was no statutory obligation on an employer to pay bonus to his employees. The question of payment of bonus was however, determined on certain principles which varied with the; conditions obtaining in different industries. In certain cases, payment of bonus formed terms of contract between) the employers and the employees while in another case, bonus was paid when full) wages tell short of living standard and when the industry made huge profits part of which was due to the contribution of the workmen. Under Section 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, wages have been defined and it specifically excludes bonus from the definition of wages bonus, therefore, cannot be said to form part of wages or earning to which a workman was entitled by way of right. Prior to the enactment of payment of Wages Act in each case, the payment of bonus depended upon the circumstances noted above and the terms of the contract between the employers and the employee in an industry. 7. Under the award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated. If the award was implemented, the petitioner would have continued in service with the employers but since an interim order was obtained from the Supreme Court staying the implementation of the award, the petitioner was not reinstated and he was not allowed to join his duties to contribute towards the Production of the employers. After the dismissal of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the employers implemented the award and reinstated the petitioner and paid him full wages tor the said period between 19th July 1954 to may 23, 1961. It is admitted case of the parties that bonus had been paid to other employees of the State Bank during the said period. The petitioner was keen to join his duties and serve the employers but the employers on their own account did not allow the petitioner to join his duties. The petitioner under the circumstances could not do anything more. The petitioner was keen to join his duties and serve the employers but the employers on their own account did not allow the petitioner to join his duties. The petitioner under the circumstances could not do anything more. As the appeal was dismissed and the interim order of stay was vacated, it became clear that the petitioner had been kept out of employment by the employers without any justification. Had the employers allowed the petitioner to join his duties, he would have also contributed towards the production of his employers and in normal course, he would also have received the bonus which was paid to all other employees of the Bank. The petitioner was always ready to discharge his obligation under the terms of the contract of service but it was on account of the act of the employers that he was not allowed to do so. The petitioner's claim for bonus, therefore, appears to be justified. It is true that bonus is not a part of wages but in the present case, the order of reinstatement came into operation immediately after the publication of the award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. The temporary ban on the operation of that award imposed by the Supreme Court was also lifted in may 1961. The petitioner would be deemed to be in service, in the eye of law during the period in question. If the petitioner was deemed to be in service in the eye of law it does not stand to reason to how the employers could refuse the amount which had been paid to other employees. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the petitioner was not in service and he has not contributed towards the production, the petitioner was not entitled to any bonus. He has referred to the case of Mathurdas Kanii v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, A.I.R. 1958 SC 899. Labour Court in its impugned order has also placed reliance on that case. In the case before Supreme Court, the question was whether a claim raised by the employees for a declaration of bonus was justified. He has referred to the case of Mathurdas Kanii v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, A.I.R. 1958 SC 899. Labour Court in its impugned order has also placed reliance on that case. In the case before Supreme Court, the question was whether a claim raised by the employees for a declaration of bonus was justified. Certain terms of contract contained in the various agreement entered into between the employers and the employees were referred to by the Supreme Court and thereupon the Supreme Court held that under the contract between the employers and the employees the workmen were not entitled to bonus. Having given that finding, the Supreme Court considered the question whether the workmen were entitled to claim incentive bonus de hors and in that connection the Supreme Court referred to its earlier case in Munir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, A.I.R. 1955 SC 170. wherein various definitions of the word 'bonus' were called out and the concept of bonus was defined. In that case, the Supreme Court laid down two tests for determining the payment for bonus. The tests laid down were that when wages fell short of the living standard, and when the industry made huge profits, part of which was due to contribution which the workmen made in increasing production, the payment of bonus became an industrial claim when either of these two conditions were satisfied. While discussing the essential conditions for the payment of incentive bonus. K. Subbarao, J. (as he then was) in A.I.R. 1958 SC 899 held that incentive bonus was payable only when the industry concerned made huge profits part of which was due to the contribution made by workmen in incensing production. The observations of K. Subbarao, J. were with regard to the question whether bonus should be declared in a particular year or not. That case is not in my opinion, applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case it is an admitted case of the parties that bonus had been paid to all other employees of the Bank during the period in question and therefore, it can safely be presumed that the employers had earned profits and that they were convinced that there was increase in their production on account of the workmen employed by them. Once the declaration of bonus is made the employers cannot contend that a particular individual workman is not entitled to bonus as he had not shown that he was responsible for increase in the production. The efforts of the workmen in the increase in production has to be taken as a whole. It is the united effort of the workmen in an industry that the production is increased and profits are earned by the employers. It may be that an individual workman may not be so efficient as the other workmen would be but that would be not be a valid consideration for depriving the other workman from the benefits of bonus if the bonus is declared by the employers. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if the employers had allowed the petitioner to continue in service to which he was entitled to under the law he would have also received the bonus which had been paid to other workmen. 9. It was not necessary for the petitioner to prove that he had actually contributed towards the increase in the production because that question stood already decided in favour of the workmen because the employers themselves had declared bonus to the workmen. The Labour Court in my opinion committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that since the petitioner had failed to contribute towards the increase in production, he was not entitled to bonus. 10. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was delay in raising the dispute, as a result of which the claim was liable to be rejected , this plea does not appear to have been raised before the Labour Court and it is too late for the respondents to raise this question before this Court. Even on merits, this contention is without any force. In the case of Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, A.I.R. 1964 SC 752, it was held that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act would not apply to an application under section 33-C (2) of the Act. In that case, the Supreme Court further held that the claim for bonus is entertained on the ground of social justice and it is not based on any statutory provision. In that case, the Supreme Court further held that the claim for bonus is entertained on the ground of social justice and it is not based on any statutory provision. The Supreme Court further held that the question of laches and lapse of time would be irrelevant when claims are made under section 33-C (2) where such claims are based on an award. In the present case, the petitioner's reinstatement had been directed by an award. The application under section 33-C (2) had been made by the petitioner for the purposes of calculating the benefits of his service. Since the bonus had been Paid to other workmen and the employers failed to pay bonus to him, the application under section 33-C (2) was maintainble and it could not be rejected on the ground of laches or delay. The respondents' contention, therefore, fails. 11. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ranearathinam Pillai v. Labour Court. Coimbatore (19691 2 Lab LJ 416 (Mad) for the proposition that when a worker has not been actually in service and has made no contribution in the earning of profits, he is not entitled to any bonus. A learned single Judge of the Madras High Court has no doubt taken the view that the workman in that case was not entitled to bonus because he had not been reinstated in service of the employers and he had made no contribution in the earning profits. In the judgment I do not find any discussion for the conclusions which have been drawn at the fag end. I have already observed that the petitioner was willing to join and discharge his duties, but the employers themselves did not allow him to work or to contribute towards the earning of profits by them. Instead they obtained an interim order as a result of which the petitioner was not allowed to work. When employers have declared bonus and all the other employees employed in the respondent Bank have been paid bonus, there does not appear any reasonable basis for rejecting the petitioner's claim, especially so, when he was not at fault. I do not therefore, agree with the observations made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid case. 12. In the result, I allow the petition A writ of certiorari shall issue quashing the orders of the Labour Court dated July 15, 1969. I do not therefore, agree with the observations made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid case. 12. In the result, I allow the petition A writ of certiorari shall issue quashing the orders of the Labour Court dated July 15, 1969. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.