Judgment LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. The Management of Shri Baidyanath Ayurveda Bhawan Private Limited, Patna, has prayed in C. W. J. C. 613 of 1970 for quashing the Award given by the Industrial Tribunal,Bihar, dated the 31st January, 1970, in Reference Case No. 74 of 1968, as contained. in Annexure 7 to the writ application by a writ of certiorari. By a notification dated the 26th October, 1968, the State Government referred two disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, a copy whereof is annexed to the writ application, as Annexure 1. In paragraph 2 of the writ application, they are stated in English as follows: 1. Whether the workmen are entitled to payment of bonus for the year 1966-67 under the Payment of Bonus Act over and above the attendance bonus which is being paid in this establishment ? If so, what should be the quantum of bonus? 2. Whether Sarvashri Shyam Narain Sah, Clerk, Tej Bahadur, parwan, and Ram Bahadur, Darwan, are entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of their suspension? If so, what should be the rate of subsistence allowance. The finding relating to the first question is contained in paragraph 9-C of the Award, which says that the workmen are entitled to the bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) for the year 1966-67 over and above the attendance bonus. The Tribunal, thereafter, considered the question of quantum of bonus payable. The Management has filed C. W. J. C. 613 of 1970 for quashing the Award relating to the first question referred and the workmen have filed C. W. J. C. 1190 of 1970 for quashing of the Award in so far as it deals with the quantum of bonus At the time of hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the workmen fairly conceded that there was no point in support of the writ application in C. W. J. C. 1190 of 1970 which he could reasonably press. In that view, C. W. J. C. 1190 of 1970 is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. 2. Mr. In that view, C. W. J. C. 1190 of 1970 is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. 2. Mr. T. K. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner in C. W. J. C. 613 of 1970, has assailed the Award and contended that the bonus, which was being paid in this establishment from before, is included within the purview of the Act and is, therefore, to be included within the bonus payable to the workmen under the Act. He placed before us a short history relating to the payment of "bonus to the workmen, as evidenced by documents produced before the Tribunal, copies whereof have been made annexures to the writ application. The first document in this regard appears to be the Award of Mr. Sheopujan Rai dated the 27th April, 1948, a portion whereof has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure 2. Question No. 7 referred to Mr. Rai was relating to the payment of bonus and Mr. Rai stated that he was inclined to introduce a profit sharing bonus for the employees but the "Trade Union preferred to have cash bonus every year, as security of service did not exist in the establishment and the employees did not stick to their jobs. He directed that one months salary from the last date of the accounting year of the factory would be paid. The next document is the Award dated 25th May, 1959, given by Mr. Ali Hassan (Annexure 3 to the writ application) and the decision under Point No. 4 relating to the bonus read as follows: "The existing system of payment of bonus is that if a workman is regular in attendance for 9 months, he gets one months pay as bonus but if it is less even by one day, then only 15 days pay is given as attendance bonus. The workmen wanted that the payment of attendance bonus should be graded. Attendance bonus is a sort of incentive for good attendance and it would be encouraging irregularity in attendance, if any graded system is introduced therein. It is likely to hamper the production. I am, therefore, reluctant to allow this demand of the workmen". 3. The workmen wanted that the payment of attendance bonus should be graded. Attendance bonus is a sort of incentive for good attendance and it would be encouraging irregularity in attendance, if any graded system is introduced therein. It is likely to hamper the production. I am, therefore, reluctant to allow this demand of the workmen". 3. In 1965, following a dispute, there was an agreement between the Management and the workmen settling all the disputes and Item No. iii of the Agreement is significant and read as follows: "Item No. iii Quantum of Profit sharing Bonus. The recommendation of the Bonus Commission will soon be enacted into law. Therefore, the question of allowing bonus would be governed by statutory laws and it is not necessary to enter into any agreement on this issue." 4. Subsequently, there had been another settlement dated 6-8-1966 (Annexure-5 to the writ application) in respect of payment of bonus for the years ending 31st October, 1962, 31st October, 1963 and 31st October, 1964, when a lump sum appears to have been agreed to be paid towards bonus, but there were no words used, throwing any light on the nature of the bonus so paid. Similar was the position in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 21-12-1966 (Annexure-6 to the writ application) relating to the bonus for the accounting year ending 31st October, 1965. 5. From the documents referred to above, it is clear that except in Annexure-3, that is the Award of Mr. Ali Hassan, attendance bonus was never mentioned; rather in Annexure-4, the agreement between the parties, the bonus was referred to as profit sharing bonus. In Annexures 5 and 6, there is no indication whatsoever about the nature of the bonus. None the less, the question which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present case assumed that what was being paid was attendance bonus. The Tribunal in paragraph 9 stated that the question was not happily framed on account of use of the words attendance bonus but he said that he was bound to proceed on the terms of the reference and he had to assume that what was being paid to the workmen was attendance bonus. The Tribunal in paragraph 9 stated that the question was not happily framed on account of use of the words attendance bonus but he said that he was bound to proceed on the terms of the reference and he had to assume that what was being paid to the workmen was attendance bonus. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court for holding that it was not open to him to investigate as to whether the bonus which was being payable to the workman in the establishment was attendance bonus or not. Mr. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, has stated before us that having regard to the language of the question referred to the Tribunal, it was not open to him to urge that the bonus which was being paid to the workmen was not attendance bonus but some other kind of bonus. I am, accordingly, assuming that the workmen in the establishment have been receiving attendance bonus from before and the question which has to be answered is whether such attendance bonus was included in the bonus payable to the workmen under the provisions of the Act. Mr. Prasad placed before us the scheme of the Act and contended that the Act is a comprehensive one and any kind of bonus payable to the workmen was included within the Act. He placed great reliance on the decisions in Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 530 = (1969 Lab IC 854), Management of Newspapers and Publications (P) Ltd. v. H. K. Choudhuri, AIR 1969 Pat 349 = (1969 Lab IC 1360) and Workmen of M/s. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. v. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd, AIR 1972 SC 1436 = (1972 Lab IC 847). 6. In the case of Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand, AIR 1969 SC 530 = (1969 Lab IC 854), the Supreme Court very lucidly set out the history of the bonus prior to the Act and held that a reference to the said history, and to the background and the circumstances in which the Act was passed, was permissible for the limited purpose of appreciating the mischief the Parliament had in mind and the remedy which it wanted to provide for preventing that mischief. Bonus was originally a voluntary payment, acquired under the Full Bench formula, the character of a right to share in the surplus profits enforceable through the machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other corresponding Acts and now under the Payment of Bonus Act. liability to pay bonus has now become statutory obligation. The Government set up a Commission to consider comprehensively the entire question of bonus in all its aspects and the Commission accordingly considered the concept of bonus, the method of computation, the machinery for enforcement and a statutory formula in place of the one evolved, by industrial adjudication and the Act was passed following the Commissions report. The question which fell for decision in the case before the Supreme Court was, whether the employees in a particular kind of business establishment were entitled to claim bonus under the Act, and while considering the matter for that purpose, the Court was also concerned whether the Act was dealing with the subject-matter of bonus comprehensively. After thoroughly considering all the relevant materials, the Court held that it was not possible to accept the construction that the Payment of Bonus Act was not an exhaustive Act dealing comprehensively with the subject-matter of bonus in all its aspects. Although the above observations were given while considering the matter in another context, they are not irrelevant for the question involved in the case before us. The comprehensive nature of the Act emphasised by the Supreme Court has to be borne in mind while deciding the issue involved in the present case. 7. The next case relied upon on behalf of the petitioner was the case of Management of Newspapers and Publications, AIR 1969 Pat 349 = (1969 Lab IC 1360) decided by a Division Bench of this Court. It was argued on behalf of the workmen in that case that the Act did not apply to bonus payable as part of. service condition because the Act governed only profit sharing bonus. This Court negatived the the above plea and accepted the case of the Management. It was argued on behalf of the workmen in that case that the Act did not apply to bonus payable as part of. service condition because the Act governed only profit sharing bonus. This Court negatived the the above plea and accepted the case of the Management. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand, AIR 1969 SC 530 = (1969 Lab IC 854), mentioned above and the argument on behalf of the workmen that the finding regarding the comprehensive nature of the Act given by the Suprme Court was in relation to the limited question of the applicability or inapplicability of the Act to certain establishments was not accepted. The contention that the decision of the Supreme Court did not lay down a general principle of the comprehensive applicability of the Payment of Bonus Act was rejected. It was held that the Act did not refer only to profit sharing bonus, 8. In the case of Workmen of M/s. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd, AIR 1972 SC 1436 . = (1972 Lab IC 847) there was an agreement entered into between the parties in 1962: and the demand of the workmen after the Act came into force was that they should be paid profit bonus as per Act in addition to what had been paid under the agreement. The Management relied on the provisions of Section 32 of the Act and argued that the workmen were precluded from claiming any benefit under the Act. The decision in the case rested on the interpretation of the language of Section 32 and the scope of its application. I do not find anything in the decision which may positively help the petitioner in establishing the point it is trying: to raise before us. However, the first two decisions relied upon by Mr. Prasad appear to be very much in point. I do not find anything in the decision which may positively help the petitioner in establishing the point it is trying: to raise before us. However, the first two decisions relied upon by Mr. Prasad appear to be very much in point. The Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of the Management of Newspapers and Publications AIR 1969 Pat 349 = (1969 Lab IC 1360) to the effect that the Payment of Bonus Act is an exhaustive piece of legislation dealing comprehensively with the subject-matter of bonus in all its aspects is: binding on us and I hold that the attendance bonus which was being paid in the establishment, although not a profit sharing bonus, comes within the purview of the Act and has to be adjusted against statutory bonus. 9. On behalf of the workmen, it has been contended that the employer is entitleed to deduct from the amount of bonus payable under the Act only such amount which has been paid as Puja bonus or any other customary bonus under Section 17 of the Act. The argument overlooks clause (b) of Section 17 of the Act which lays down that the employer shall similarly be entitled to deduct the amount he has paid towards a portion of bonus payable under the Act. If a limited interpretation of the Act to the effect that the Act includes only profit sharing bonus, had been accepted, the contention of the workmen would be right, but in view of the comprehensive application of the Act held by me, the objection raised on behalf of the workmen has to be overruled. Attendance bonus which was being paid in the establishment was in lieu of profit sharing bonus, as appears from the statement in Annexure 2 and was being given as an incentive for higher production by regular attendance and was a part of the bonus payable under the Act. 10. The next argument made on behalf of the workmen was that attendance bonus was a term very well recognised by the Act, as it appears from Section 2 (21) (iv). It was suggested that attendance bonus could not be incentive or production bonus as three terms have been used in that clause within brackets separately. This argument also appears to be fallacious. Each of these three terms has not been used in the clause as excluding others. It was suggested that attendance bonus could not be incentive or production bonus as three terms have been used in that clause within brackets separately. This argument also appears to be fallacious. Each of these three terms has not been used in the clause as excluding others. They are merely illustrative. The observations made in paragraph 32 in the Bata Case by the Supreme Court fully support this view. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that attendance bonus was not profit sharing bonus has been strongly emphasised by learned Counsel. In view of my decision, as stated above, I do not find any merit in any of the arguments addressed by the respondents Counsel. 11. In the result, this writ application succeeds and the Award given by the Tribunal in respect of the first question referred to it is quashed and it is held that the workmen are not entitled to payment of bonus for the year 1966-67 under the Payment of Bonus Act over and above the attendance bonus. C. W. J. C. 613 of 1970 is allowed as stated above and C. W. J. C. 1190 of 1970 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. SARWAR ALI, J. 12 I agree.