Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Petitioner in this Original Petition is the Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. It is a Company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner owns tile factories in the State of Kerala as well as Karnataka and Weaving Factories in Kozhikode. Respondents 2 to 60 are members of Staff under the petitioner and their monthly salary is more than Rs.1,600/-. Respondents 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 59 are Supervisors working in a supervisory capacity. 2. For the year 1989-90 there was a dispute between the petitioner and its employees with regard to the rate at which the bonus had to be paid. Petitioner alleges that the employees struck work and there was also a partial lock out. The demand of bonus and strike and lock out was thereafter taken up for conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Department. In the conference held by the Labour Commissioner at Trivandrum on 15.12.1990 the dispute was settled. The memorandum of settlement is produced as Ext. P1. Clause (1.) in the settlement says that the management agrees to pay bonus at the rate of 10.5% of the wages earned by the workmen during the year 1989-90 as bonus for that year. Under clause (2) in addition to the bonus paid, the management will also pay 5% of the wages earned by the workmen during the year 1989-90 as leave travel allowance. The payments had to be made by the Management before April, 1991. 3. It seems-that as per the settlement, the management paid bonus to its employees. Respondents 2 to 60 are persons, who were drawing more than Rs. 1600/ - per month. Hence, with regard them, the payment was made as stipulated in S.12 of the Payment of Bonus Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act). The leave travel allowance was also paid in the same way. According to respondents 2 to 60, as per the settlement, each of the employee is entitled to bonus at 10.5% of the wages earned. This is irrespective of the question whether the salary was more than Rs. 1,600/- per mensem. They demanded the petitioner to pay the balance amount, but the management refused. Hence, respondents 2 to 60 filed Ext. P2 petition under S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The claim was registered as C.P. No. 69/91. 4. This is irrespective of the question whether the salary was more than Rs. 1,600/- per mensem. They demanded the petitioner to pay the balance amount, but the management refused. Hence, respondents 2 to 60 filed Ext. P2 petition under S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The claim was registered as C.P. No. 69/91. 4. The contention of the respondents in the claim petition was that the practice was to pay bonus on the total wages earned by the employees without limiting the quantum of wages for Rs. 1,600/- per month. The management entered appearance and filed a counter statement, which is evidenced by Ext. P3. The maintainability of the petition under S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was challenged on the ground that the respondents had no existing right to receive the amount demanded by them. It was further contended that the establishment was covered by the Act and the bonus was given on the basis of wages earned. Hence, according to the petitioner, under S.12 of the Act, the bonus is limited when the wages exceed Rs. 1,600 per mensem. There was a dispute regarding the rate of bonus to be paid and this was resolved by the agreement by paying bonus at 10.5%. Petitioner has also denied its liability to pay leave travel allowance basing on the same contention. The Labour Court, Kozhikode after hearing the parties passed the order, which is produced as Ext. P4. The Labour Court held that the respondents were claiming bonus as per the settlement and hence, they have got a right to claim bonus and leave travel allowance as per the settlement. Thus, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the employees had an existing right to claim bonus. It further repelled the contention of the management that the employees ought to have resorted to S.21 of the Act. So far as the contention under S.12 of the Act is concerned, the Labour Court went on to hold that S.12 of the Act is applicable only when the bonus is payable under the Act and if the liability to pay bonus or the right to claim bonus arises out of a settlement, S.12 of the Act shall not apply. The Labour Court went on to hold that S.12 of the Act applies only to the bonus payable under S.10 or S.11 of the Act. The Labour Court went on to hold that S.12 of the Act applies only to the bonus payable under S.10 or S.11 of the Act. In that view of the matter, it held that respondents 2 to 60 are entitled to bonus at 10.5 % on the actual wages earned by them. Regarding the leave travel allowance also on the basis of the finding that S.12 of the Act has no application, the Labour Court held that they are entitled to leave travel allowance and S.12 of the Act is not applicable. Hence, respondents 2 to 60 were allowed to realise the balance amount as claimed. It is challenging Ext. P4 order that the present Original Petition is filed. 5. Sri. U.K. Ramakrishnan appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Ext. P4 order is against the provisions of law and hence, it is liable to be quashed. According to him, no existing right is created in favour of the respondents as per the settlement deed. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court which stated that the power of the Labour Court under S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is akin to the power of an Executing Court when executing a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the Labour Court has, under S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, power only to compile the amount due to the claimants. It cannot go into the question whether the claimants are entitled to that amount. He cited the decision in Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway v. Kamalam & Ors. -1988 (2) KLT 835. In that case, Sreedharan, J. (as he then was) held as follows: "If the right to the money or benefit which is sought to be computed is disputed the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on that in a petition filed under S.33(C)(2). The question as to whether the workman is end lied to the benefit is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act". Secondly he submitted that the petitioner's establishment is an establishment covered by the Act and the employees were paid bonus according to the Act. He also submitted that the settlement executed also comes within the provisions of the Act. Secondly he submitted that the petitioner's establishment is an establishment covered by the Act and the employees were paid bonus according to the Act. He also submitted that the settlement executed also comes within the provisions of the Act. According to the counsel for the petitioner, if the claim for bonus of an employee springs from the Act, then it is governed by all the provisions of the Act including the provisions from Ss.10 to 12 of the Act. He further invited my attention to S.31-A of the Act. According to him, if the management enters into a settlement with the employees for payment of annual bonus linked with production or productivity, then probably S.12 of the Act may not be applicable to the employees. The learned counsel further highlighted the fact that it was only those who received the salary of more than Rs. 1,600/- per mensem who had approached the Labour Court. The rest of the workmen were satisfied with the bonus paid. There was a dispute between the management and the workmen with regard to the rate of bonus to be paid that was resolved by the conciliation and the management agreed to pay bonus at 10.5% of the wages earned. Bonus was not given on the basis of the production or productivity. Hence, counsel submitted that the settlement has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Act, especially S.12 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents Sri. Ramachandran contended that the claim petition was maintainable. There was no case that the settlement was not binding on the Management. In so far as the settlement itself says that the employees are entitled to bonus at the rate of 10.5% , it immediately creates a right on the employees to receive bonus at such rate. Hence, it is not correct to say that no existing right is created in favour of the employees. It was further submitted that the settlement was executed with reference to the provisions of the Act. Counsel also relied on S.34 of the Act. According to this provision, excepting the agreement executed pursuant to S.31-A of the Act, all the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the for time being in force. Counsel also relied on S.34 of the Act. According to this provision, excepting the agreement executed pursuant to S.31-A of the Act, all the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the for time being in force. It is not correct to say that the settlement can be executed only with respect to bonus linked with production or productivity. The Act was enacted for the purpose of securing a minimum bonus for the employees. But that doesn't mean that the employees have no right to enter into an agreement with the management with regard to the bonus payable. The learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Pappu v. Raja Tile & Match Works -> 1988 (1) KLT 476 - where this court repelled a similar contention raised on behalf of the management and held that a Labour Court, under S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is entitled to order the claim in spite of any denial by the respondents. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Hukumchand Jute Mills Limited and Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal -1979 (1) LLJ 461. 7. The first question to be decided is whether the claim petition is maintainable. The claim is based on Ext. P1 memorandum of settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was a dispute regarding the percentage of bonus payable to the employees. The disputes lead to a strike and partial lock out of the establishment. Clause 1 of the settlement deals with the percentage of bonus payable. According to that clause, the management agreed to pay bonus at the rate of 10.5% of the wages or salary earned during the year 1989-90. Under clause 2, the management agreed to pay 5 % of the wages or salary earned during the year 1989-90 as leave travel allowance. According to the claimants, they are entitled to the amounts as specified in the settlement. But the Management has restricted the wages to a maximum of amount of Rs. 1,600/- per month. The claimants who were earning the salary of more than Rs. 1,600/- per month claimed that the bonus as well as the leave travel allowance should be paid on the basis of the actual salary earned by them. But the Management has restricted the wages to a maximum of amount of Rs. 1,600/- per month. The claimants who were earning the salary of more than Rs. 1,600/- per month claimed that the bonus as well as the leave travel allowance should be paid on the basis of the actual salary earned by them. According to the Management, the workmen are governed by the Payment of Bonus Act and hence the settlement has to be read subject to Section 12 of the Act. Further they rely on Section 34 and Sci i ion 31-A of the Act. 8. The proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are analogues to execution proceedings and the Labour Court is called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by a workman in such cases. The right to benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one. It is well settled that it is for the Executing Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. It is true that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor can grant or subtract from the provision of the decree. It was held in East India Coal Co. v. Rameswar- A.I.R.1968 SC 218 - that the Labour Court is entitled to interpret the award or settlement and it would be open to it to consider the plea of nullity when the award or settlement is made without jurisdiction. The case of the Management is that if the contentions of the claimants are accepted, then the settlement would be in violation of Section 34 of the Act, i.e., a settlement contrary to Section 34 of the Act cannot be given effect to. This is a contention which can be considered by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, I hold that the claim petition was maintainable. 9. Now, on the merits. There are two claims. The first is under Clause (1) of the settlement. Under this Clause the management agreed to pay 10.5% of the wages or salary earned by the workmen during the period 1989-90 as compensation for that year. The Management has paid the amounts under the clause, but in implementing this clause, it invoked Section' 12 of the Act. Thus, the respondents, who were getting monthly income of more than Rs. Under this Clause the management agreed to pay 10.5% of the wages or salary earned by the workmen during the period 1989-90 as compensation for that year. The Management has paid the amounts under the clause, but in implementing this clause, it invoked Section' 12 of the Act. Thus, the respondents, who were getting monthly income of more than Rs. 1,600/- were paid bonus calculating their salaries as if it were Rs. 1,600/- per month. The Labour Court negatived this contention on the ground that Section 12 of the Act is in applicable. According to the Labour Court, Section 12 is applicable only when the bonus is paid according to Section 10 or Section 11 of the Act. According to the Labour Court, since bonus was paid pursuant to a settlement, Section 12 of the Act was inapplicable. 10. There is no dispute that the Act is applicable to the establishment of the petitioner. Bonus which was originally a voluntary payment has become a statutory obligation under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. A minimum bonus is now taken or granted to the workers in the organised industrial sector as part of their emoluments. The question is when the Act is applicable to an establishment whether an agreement dehors the Act can guide the payment of bonus. Merely because the rate of bonus is stipulated in the settlement can it be said that the provisions of the Act are given a goby. In this context, itis necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. The definition of the employee includes apprentices and those having monthly salary of more than2,500/-. Section 10 of the Act mandates the payment of a minimum bonus of 8.33% of the salary of wages earned during the accounting year. While Section 11 of the Act fixes the minimum bonus payable, Section 12 of the Act deals with calculation of bonus to certain employees, whose monthly income exceeds Rs. 1,600/-. From Section 17 of the Act, it is clear that customary bonus is not covered by the Act. Section 31-A of the Act deals with payment of bonus linked with production or productivity. Under this Section, the Management and the workers are free to enter into an agreement for the payment of actual bonus linked with production or productivity. 1,600/-. From Section 17 of the Act, it is clear that customary bonus is not covered by the Act. Section 31-A of the Act deals with payment of bonus linked with production or productivity. Under this Section, the Management and the workers are free to enter into an agreement for the payment of actual bonus linked with production or productivity. But even under such an agreement the bonus payable should not go below 8.33% or above 20% of the wages or salary earned for the year in question. Another important Section is Section 34 of the Act. As per this Section, the provisions of the Act will have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law, agreement, settlement, award, contract of service, etc. 11. On an examination of the settlement, it cannot be said that the settlement was the source or right for bonus. It only settled the disputes with regard to the rate of bonus. The rate of bonus was fixed at 10.5% of the wages earned. There is no case that the bonus fixed was linked with production or productivity. Thus, this is a case where the workmen were entitled to bonus as per the Act and the rate of bonus was resolved through a settlement. The bonus was not linked with production or productivity and the employees were not those who were exempted from the provisions of the Act. If that be so, the provisions of the Act are applicable with regard to payment of bonus. The Labour Court rejected the contention under Section 12 of the Act, because bonus was not paid under Section 10 or Section 11 of the Act. As already stated, entitled of bonus is as per the provisions of the Act. Merely because the rate of bonus was settled as per a settlement it does not cease to be a payment under the Act. In this case, Section 11 is attracted and hence Section 12 of the Act can be invoked. Therefore, since the workmen were entitled to more than the minimum bonus, the amount of bonus was determined through a settlement. If the contentions of .the claimants are accepted, it will amount to giving validity for an agreement which is in conflict with Section 34 of the Act. If that be so, then the bonus is payable treating the salary of Rs. If the contentions of .the claimants are accepted, it will amount to giving validity for an agreement which is in conflict with Section 34 of the Act. If that be so, then the bonus is payable treating the salary of Rs. 1,600/- per mensem as the basis for calculating the bonus for those who earned more than Rs. 1,600/- per month-The finding of the Labour Court that Section 12 of the Act is not applicable is set aside and I hold that the respondents are entitled to bonus treating their monthly salary at Rs. 1,600/- for the year 1989-90. 12. So far as the leave travel allowance is concerned, it stands on a different footing. Itis not a bonus. If the payment of the above amount is not covered by the Act, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable with regard to the payment of leave travel allowance. The clause in the settlement is not in violation of Section 34 of the Act. Hence it is not correct to restrict the leave travel allowance with regard to persons who got a monthly salary of more than Rs. 1,600/-. In that view of the matter, the workers are entitled to leave travel allowance at 5% of the actual salary or wages earned by them. Hence, the finding of the Labour Court is upheld. 13. n the result, the finding on point No. 2 in Ext. P2 is quashed and the finding on Point No. 3 is upheld. The Labour Court is directed to give a fresh finding on Point No. 4 and determine the amounts due to the claimants in accordance with the above directions. Original Petition is allowed.