JUDGMENT M. M. Gupta, J. 1. Respondents are Sardar Dalip Singh Majithia, Satya Jeet Singh Majithia and Works Manager, respectively of Saraya Engineering (Private) Limited, Gorakhpur. The accounting year of the Saraya Engineering Works ended on 31st October, 1968. Bonus was payable to the workers before 30th June, 1968, but bonus was not paid by the respondents. Saraya Engineering Works was inspected on 19th December, 1970 by the Labour Inspector. He found that bonus was not paid to the employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act. He, therefore, issued a notice to the respondents. Respondents claimed that bonus was not payable as Saraya Engineering Works had suffered losses. A complaint was, therefore, filed against respondents by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh before the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur. 2. Before the learned City Magistrate it was contended that Saraya Engineering Works had suffered losses, bonus was, therefore, not payable by the respondents. This plea did not find favour with him. He accordingly convicted the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge, however, accepted the contention of the respondents that in case of loss even minimum bonus was not payable. Respondents were accordingly acquitted. The State on being dissatisfied with the order of acquittal of the learned Sessions Judge came up in appeal and has challenged his findings. 3. This appeal had come up for hearing on 19th March, 1979. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on 1969 LLJ page 809, Kumaon Mat or Owners Union Ltd. Kathgodam v. State of Uttar Pradesh in which the learned single Judge of our High Court had held that the words, "whether there are profits in the accounting year or not" in Sec. 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act cannot possibly be construed to cover alt the above mentioned three situations, though, of course, they arc wide enough to cover two situations, namely, one in which there has been profit and another in which there has been no profit. The said expression could not be construed to cover the case where the employer has suffered a positive loss in the year in question. The said expression could not be construed to cover the case where the employer has suffered a positive loss in the year in question. The learned counsel further relied on the Supreme Court case, 1978 LLJ volume II page 350 Management of Central Coal Washery v. Workmen in which it was held while interpreting Section 16 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 that in a case where the appellant followed the straight line method but explanation II to Section 16 (i) (a) says that the employer shall not be deemed to have derived profit unless he has made provisions for that year's depreciation to which he is entitled to under the Income Tax Act. This explanation embodies a clear legislative mandate that in determining, for the purpose of CI. (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16, whether the employer has made profit from the establishment in any accounting year, depreciation should be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Income-Tax Act. Clearly, therefore, if depreciation is as prescribed in the Income Tax Act, there is no profit for the year in quest ion and there is no liability on the part of the employer to pay bonus under the Act. On the basis of this case cited (by the learned counsel I came to the conclusion that under Section 10 if the employer suffered loss as distinguished from the case of no profits he would not be liable to pay bonus to the labour. I had, therefore, dictated the judgment. However, on going through the judgment but before it could be signed or sealed I became doubtful about the correctness of the view taken. I, therefore, got the case listed for further arguments. It is in this context that further arguments have been heard in this appeal. 4. The question depends upon the interpretation of Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act itself which runs as follows :- "10. I, therefore, got the case listed for further arguments. It is in this context that further arguments have been heard in this appeal. 4. The question depends upon the interpretation of Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act itself which runs as follows :- "10. Payment of minimum bonus- Subject to the provisions of Sections 8 and 13, every employer shall be bound to pay to every employee in an accounting year a minimum bonus which shall be four per cent of the salary or wage earned by the employee during the accounting year or forty rupees, which ever is higher, whether there are profits in the accounting year or not." The last words, whether there are profits in the accounting year or not have to be interpreted to mean if they include also cases of loss or not. It is no doubt true that the reported case of our High Court in 1969 LLJ page 809 (supra) supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. However there is a subsequent decision of our High Court reported in 1974 Labour and Industrial Cases page 1040- Messrs Cooperative Co. Ltd. (Distillers) Nawabganj, Saharanpur v. State of U. P. decided by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. (as he then was), which on the first date of hearing was not brought to my notice, it was held that in view of the Supreme Court decision - AIR 1967 SC page 691- Jalan Trading Co. Pr. Ltd. v. The Mill Mazdoor Sabha, contrary to the decision of the learned single Judge of this court-1969 LLJ page 809 -Kumaon Moter Owners Union Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others cannot hold the field. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that the view taken in 1969 LLJ 809 was not contrary to the view taken in Jalan Trading Company v. The Mills Mazdoor Sabha and as such the view taken by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. (as he then was) is not correct. However, a close reading of the judgment in Jalan Trading Company v. The Mill Mazdoor Sabha, 1967 SC page 691 at page 705 would show that in Section 10 such cases were also included where the employers suffered loss bonus was also held to be payable. However, a close reading of the judgment in Jalan Trading Company v. The Mill Mazdoor Sabha, 1967 SC page 691 at page 705 would show that in Section 10 such cases were also included where the employers suffered loss bonus was also held to be payable. The observations were :- "Section 10 undoubtedly places in the same class establishments which have made inadequate profits not justifying payment of bonus, establishments which have suffered heavy loss. The classification so made is not unintelligible : all establishments which are unable to pay bonus under the scheme of the Act, on the result of the working of the establishment, are grouped together. The object of the Act is to make an equitable distribution of the surplus profits of the establishment with a view to maintain peace and harmony between the three agencies which contribute to the earning of profits. Distribution of profits which is not subject to great fluctuations year after year, would certainly conduce to maintenance of peace and harmony and would be regarded as equitable, and provision for payment of bonus at the statutory minimun rate, even if the establishment has not earned profit is clearly enacted to ensure the object of the Act." These observations do not leave any room for doubt that even in cases of losses bonus is payable. 6. In a socialistic pattern of society in which we are living today it is more or less obvious that there should be greater participation of the labour in the fruits of their labour. A labour today in the present set up cannot be a mere wage earner. Keeping this in view most of the legislations are enacted today and this seems to be the intention of the legislature behind the enactments and provisions contained in Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act which requires payment of minimum bonus to the workers even in cases where the employers have suffered losses. This also puts a check on the employer's tendency to avoid showing profits to evade payment of bonus. The Supreme Court case reported in 1978 Vol. II, LLJ page 350, Management of Central Coal Washery v. Workmen, interprets only Section 16. This section in my opinion has no relevance so far as the question under discussions is concerned. This also puts a check on the employer's tendency to avoid showing profits to evade payment of bonus. The Supreme Court case reported in 1978 Vol. II, LLJ page 350, Management of Central Coal Washery v. Workmen, interprets only Section 16. This section in my opinion has no relevance so far as the question under discussions is concerned. Section 16 applies to Eases of new firms of employers which may not earn profit for a particular number of years. 7. In this view of the matter the appeal filed by the State must succeed. 8. The learned counsel has, however, tried to argue that after dictating the judgment in open court it is not open to me to hear this appeal any further and he has cited a Supreme Court case reported in 1954 SC page, 194, Surendra Singh and others v. State of U. P. This case was also interpreted by a Full Bench of our High Court in 1965 AWR 668, Sangam Lal v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In that case it was held as below :- "In our view, this decision of the Supreme Court furnishes a complete answer to the question referred to us. It makes it clear that there is power of "review" both in cases where judgment has been delivered but not signed and cases in which judgment has been delivered, signed and sealed ; in the former case the power to alter or amend or even to change completely is unlimited provided notice is given to the parties and they are heard before the proposed change is made, while in the latter case the power is limited and review is permitted only on very narrow grounds." In the case reported in AIR 1979 SC 87 , State of Orissa v. Ram Chancier Agarwala it was held that in the case of criminal appeal or revision the court could not review or alter its judgment once it had signed it. The prohibition is thus imposed only after the judgment has been signed and not merely after it is dictated in open court. 9. The appeal is hereby allowed. Order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The order under Section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act is restored and each one of the respondents is imposed a fine of Rs. 150/-. 9. The appeal is hereby allowed. Order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The order under Section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act is restored and each one of the respondents is imposed a fine of Rs. 150/-. In default of payment of fine each one of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for forty days. Respondents are allowed one month's time to deposit the fine from the date of receipt of record by the court below. Appeal allowed.