JUDGMENT 1. ORDER this Rule was obtained by the petitioner for quashing an award by the Tribunal relating to payment of bonus to its workmen for the year 1965 under the Payment of bonus Act 1965 (referred to herein as the Act). 2. A dispute arose as to the quantum of bonus payable by the petitioner to its workmen under the Act for the year 1965. By a settlement between the petitioner and its workmen represented by "Kidderpore Sramik Union" the dispute was referred to the 5th Industrial tribunal, the respondent No. 1 for adjudication. The petitioner's case before the Tribunal was in substance that the direct tax for the purpose of ascertainment of bonus under the Act should be calculated on a notional basis by applying the rates applicable to the accounting year in question to the balance of gross profits in terms of relevant Section 4 of the Act but without deducting the bonus. The case of the workmen, on the other hand, was that the amount deductable as direct tax was actual amount of tax as assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal took the view that the amount of direct tax deductable in calculating the bonus for the accounting year 1965 was the amount actually assessed upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, after deducting amongst other items a sum of Rs. 1,97,671/-awarded bonus on an available surplus of Rs. 1,07,937. That is how, in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule. 3. THE same contention is pressed before me by Mr. Chowdhury on behalf of the petitioner. He says, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Metal Box Co. v. Their Workmen air 1969 SC 612 , the direct tax that is to be deducted for calculation of the available surplus in connection with the payment of bonus under the Act must be on a notional basis in terms of Sections 4, 6 and 7 and schedule II of the Act. Possibly the Tribunal noticed also this decision of the Supreme Court but I am not sure, for, all that it has stated in its award is that "it is true that in some cases it has been held by the Supreme court that the amount to be deducted is to be on a notional basis". Possibly the Tribunal noticed also this decision of the Supreme Court but I am not sure, for, all that it has stated in its award is that "it is true that in some cases it has been held by the Supreme court that the amount to be deducted is to be on a notional basis". Any way, it was not proper for the Tribunal to consider decisions of the Supreme court in such a casual manner without even noting the citation. This only shows that the Tribunal did not apply its mind at all. The Tribunal, as appears, however, seems to have distinguished supreme Court cases that were in its mind on the impression that as the income tax in the instant case was already assessed in respect of the year 1965, the amount so assessed was to be deducted in calculating the available surplus and therefore, there need not be any compliance with the provisions of the Act. I think, there he is entirely wrong. The Act is a self-contained Act and lays down the principles as to how and the manner in which the calculation is to be made in finding out the available surplus. The Supreme Court in Metal Box's case (supra) has construed sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Schedule ii of the Act and laid down the principles and manner in which direct tax is to be computed and deducted for finding out the available surplus for the payment of bonus to its workmen for a particular year. There may be actual assessment by the Income-tax Authorities for a particular year but that assessment again cannot be final for more than one reason. As for instance the assessment so made may be set aside or varied by higher authorities in appeal, revision or on reference. In any case, there is no provision under the act for deducting the actual amount where it has been so assessed by the income-tax Authorities. It is also not provided either that the method as laid down in the Act is to be followed only where the actual assessment of tax has not been made by the Taxing Authorities under the Income Tax Act. It seems to me, therefore, clear that the tribunal misdirected itself in calculating the available surplus after deducting the actual amount of assessed tax without following the provisions of the act. 4. It seems to me, therefore, clear that the tribunal misdirected itself in calculating the available surplus after deducting the actual amount of assessed tax without following the provisions of the act. 4. ACCORDINGLY, I quash the Award. The matter will now go back to the Tribunal for its fresh decision on the evidence and materials already on record and on such further evidence as may be adduced by the parties in accordance with law. The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above but there will be no order as to costs. Let a writ both in the nature of certiorari and mandamus issue accordingly.