Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-In respect of the financial year 1983-84, the State had referred the dispute under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act), to the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, for adjudication whether the workmen of the petitioner bank were entitled to the bonus to the extent of 20 per cent or not. The statement of claim was filed before the Industrial Tribunal vide Annexure 1 which was replied to by the petitioner vide Annexure 2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed the calculation in respect of gross profits for the purpose of calculating available and allocable surplus for distribution of bonus for the year 1983-84 and a counter calculation was also filed by the workers. The dispute is about the amount of calculation which had been added by the workmen to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs of the gross profit to which the case of the petitioner is that such amount cannot be added back for the purpose of bonus. For calculating the bonus, it is admitted fact that the efforts of the parties are always to decrease the gross profits by showing certain items which should have been added for the purpose of gross profits whereas the opposite party challenges such items. The item of Rs. 15 lakhs was the “overdue interest” item and the question arises whether this interest which is already overdue for the year 1983-84 should be added back to the profits or not or be considered as reserves. The case of the petitioner was that for the reasons that interest though was overdue, but had not been received and, therefore, this amount was shown as “overdue interest reserve.” It was a common case that the bonus was to be calculated as per the schedule provided and attached under the Bonus Act wherein Schedule I, all types of “reserves” have to be added back. 2. The Tribunal after hearing the parties had decided the case in favour of the employees of the bank vide his award, dated April 22, 1992 (sic April 2, 1992) and the petitioner was directed to pay the balance of the arrears of the bonus at 11.67 per cent in addition to 8.33 per cent already paid along with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The award passed by the Tribunal on April 2, 1992 was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6949 of 1993, which was disposed of vide order, dated January 31, 1995, holding therein that it was not clear from the award Annexure 6, dated April 2, 1992, whether the bank was maintaining the accounts according to mercantile system or according to cash system. It was further held that in case the accounts are maintained on cash system then the question of paying overdue interest would not have arisen, but if the bank is maintaining the mercantile system; in that situation the said amount is to be added back for calculating the bonus. It was further held that in such system, the amount of “overdue interest” cannot be reduced from the profit and loss accounts, and if the accounts are maintained in mercantile system, then whatever amount is accrued as income by way of interest is to be added back. This Court had observed as under: “The Tribunal has proceeded on the proposition that the words ‘any other reserves’ which are mentioned in the First Schedule will cover the overdue interest. The decision in the case of Indian Oxygen, Ltd. v. Their workmen AIR 1972 SC 471 : (1972-I-LLJ-627) was also taken into consideration. From a perusal of the award of the Industrial Tribunal it is not known whether the petitioner has maintained the accounts according to mercantile system or according to cash system. If it is cash system then the question of adding of overdue interest would not have arisen. Such amount could have been added in mercantile system. Schedule I contemplated adding back certain amount. The amount of overdue interest cannot be reduced from the profit and loss account, if the accounts are maintained in mercantile system then whatever amount is accrued as income by way of interest, it will be added to the profit of the year. The question which was adjudged by the Tribunal was whether the profit has correctly been arrived at in accordance with the formula given in the schedule.” 3. Thematter was remanded back to the Tribunal to proceed as per the direction and to give a finding on the question whether the bank was maintaining cash system or mercantile system. 4. The question which was adjudged by the Tribunal was whether the profit has correctly been arrived at in accordance with the formula given in the schedule.” 3. Thematter was remanded back to the Tribunal to proceed as per the direction and to give a finding on the question whether the bank was maintaining cash system or mercantile system. 4. The Tribunal after the remand had given a finding vide his award, dated October 29, 1996 copy of which is attached as Annexure 6 to the effect that the bank is maintaining the mercantile system and, therefore, the “reserve interest” is to be added back for calculating the allocable surplus under the provisions of the Bonus Act. 5. It is stated that even though the award was passed in October 1996, but it was only in December 1998 and January 1999 when the Managing Director had applied its mind to the impugned award on receipt of the notice from the Labour Commissioner for implementation of the award and, therefore, the present petition had been filed in the year 1999. 6. Apart from above, the Counsel for the petitioner states that under Schedule I of the Payment of Bonus Act “any other reserves” should mean “depreciation reserve” or “development rebate reserve” and not the “interest reserve” and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs should not be added back for the purpose of calculating the bonus to the workers. 7. I he dispute which had arisen in the year 1983-84 was settled initially in the year 1992 by the Labour Court, but was remanded back by the High Court for a decision on the point whether the bank was maintaining the mercantile system or cash system in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 6949 of 1993, and it was also found by this Court that in case it is the mercantile system in that situation the bank is bound to add back the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs 3 for the purpose of calculating the bonus. This finding of the High Court is final. The Labour Court on remand had found that the bank was adopting the mercantile system and, therefore, the reserve interest which was due is to be added back towards the gross profits. The dispute of 1983-84 has been finally settled by the Labour Court vide Annexure 6 in October 1996. This finding of the High Court is final. The Labour Court on remand had found that the bank was adopting the mercantile system and, therefore, the reserve interest which was due is to be added back towards the gross profits. The dispute of 1983-84 has been finally settled by the Labour Court vide Annexure 6 in October 1996. Basing this decision on evidence and in view of the fact that the finding had already been given by the High Court, there is hardly any ground for the petitioner to challenge the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal on the basis that the accounting of the co-operative bank is to be based as per the rules of the co-operative bank. It is not disputed that the bonus is being calculated under the provisions of Bonus Act Bonus Act is a special Act and is admittedly applicable to the parties. Even otherwise, a profit on account of interest which had accrued to the bank in the financial year in question is to be added back and shall relate to the year 1983-84 and was “reserve fund” for the relevant financial year. 8. Thecontention of the petitioner has no merits for the reasons mentioned above and the writ petition is therefore, dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 9. Apart from above, even though the award was passed in October 1996, the same has been challenged after a delay of two years, the explanation given by the respondent in this regard is not acceptable. 10. The writ petition is dismissed on merits as well on the point of laches.