Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant, a State Government undertaking is challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding Ext. P-4 award of the Industrial Tribunal granting bonus to the headload workers engaged in one of the godowns of the appellant at Melamuri in Palakkad. 2. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the second respondent and also gone through the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge and the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The contention of the appellant is that Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called "the Act") provides for bonus to "employees" and since the headload workers engaged for loading and unloading goods at the godown on contract are not employees of the appellant, they are not entitled to bonus under the Act. Counsel for the second respondent on the other hand contended that the very same employees were engaged although by the appellant's depot for loading and unloading and since each of them have worked for more than thirty days in the relevant year i.e. 1990-1991, they are rightly held to be entitled for bonus under the Act by the Industrial Tribunal as upheld by the learned Single Judge. Counsel further contended that it is a common practice that headload workers are paid bonus by various establishments including public sector undertakings. 3. In the first place, on going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Judge has wrongly assumed that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant is the employer of the workers who have claimed bonus. In fact we do not find the Tribunal has entered any such finding in the award. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the claimants were headload workers engaged not only by appellants, but by others during the same period. The practice followed was that the claimants were engaged by appellant in loading and unloading work only when work was available at the depot and the payments were made to one of the headload workers who shared it with the others. The Tribunal after referring to the evidence of witnesses for the appellants M.W.2 and 3 found that the same workers had worked for others during the relevant time. The Tribunal after referring to the evidence of witnesses for the appellants M.W.2 and 3 found that the same workers had worked for others during the relevant time. Moreover, appellant's witness M.W.1 whose evidence is relied on by the Tribunal against the appellant, stated in evidence which is recorded in the Tribunal's order that "whenever the workers were not available, goods were sent by the appellant to other depots for unloading there". Therefore, it is clear from the facts recorded by the Tribunal that the claimants were headload workers engaged in the area and have done loading and unloading work in appellant's depot when work was there in that depot and at other times they were engaged in loading and unloading work of others in the area. The question therefore is whether bonus can be paid to such casual workers engaged for loading and unloading on rate contract basis. "Employee" as defined under Section 2(13) of the Act is as follows: “”employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on a salary or wage not exceeding (two thousand and five hundred rupees) per mensem in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work of hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied." 4. Even though the Tribunal has referred to the definitions of "employee" and "employer" and did not find employment, but still held that claimants who have done loading and unloading work for more than 30 days for appellant during 1990-1991 are entitled to bonus. The appellant's submission that the claimants were engaged by others during the same period for loading and unloading work when appellant did not have work is met by the Tribunal by holding that every employer under whom an employee has worked for not less than 30 days in an year is entitled to bonus. Even though an employee is entitled to bonus from more than one employer in the same year for the period he worked, what is contemplated is not simultaneous employment of an employee under more than one employer at a time. Even though an employee is entitled to bonus from more than one employer in the same year for the period he worked, what is contemplated is not simultaneous employment of an employee under more than one employer at a time. If the logic applied by the Tribunal is followed, then to consider the monetary limit for bonus eligibility, the wages earned by an employee from different employers during the same month have to be added together which is neither done nor details available in this case even though simultaneous employment under different employees during same period stands proved. Therefore, what we feel for requirement for eligibility for bonus is employment as an employee under the same employer on an exclusive basis for 30 days in an year. In other words, the employer-employee relationship contemplated under the Act is not simultaneous employment during the same period under more than one employer assuming engagement of the type in this case also is employment. Therefore, piecerated employment for work like loading and unloading on contract basis on a nonexclusive basis as in this case is not what is visualized under the Act as employment in an organisation. Even though the Tribunal has held that the claimants in this case were under the control of the appellant, we do not know on what basis the Tribunal could arrive at such a conclusion when the work assigned by the appellant was admittedly loading and unloading goods on agreed rates under agreement between parties and loading workers were proved to be free to do work elsewhere and were not even bound to be present in appellant's godown and appellant had to divert goods to their other depots on account of non-availability of claimants. In fact, the Tribunal itself has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981) SCC (L&S) 323 wherein the court has held that liability to pay bonus is not a question of mere legal liability, but it must be considered as in the context of maintenance of sound industrial relations. Legal liability to pay bonus is to be considered under the provisions of the statute and payment of bonus either in terms of settlement between parties or voluntary payment by the management to maintain good relation with the workers is another thing. Legal liability to pay bonus is to be considered under the provisions of the statute and payment of bonus either in terms of settlement between parties or voluntary payment by the management to maintain good relation with the workers is another thing. When Government refers dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, it has to decide the matter based on statutory provisions and not to promote or improve relation between workers and the management. Benefits on policy matters have to be settled between employers and employees and Tribunals and courts have no authority to grant it in violation of statutory provisions. It is pertinent to note that the charges for loading and unloading are governed by contract between parties and bonus is admittedly not provided therein. We are of the view that when there is no specific provision for payment of bonus in the rate contract, it has to be assumed that no such benefit is contemplated and the rates provided are inclusive of everything due to the contractees. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether the appellant has liability to pay bonus under the Act, which in our opinion, is in the negative as the loading and unloading workers of the second respondent-Union do not answer the description of "employees" of the appellant under the Act. We find from the order of the Tribunal that what weighed with the Tribunal to uphold the claim of bonus of the headload workers of the second respondent-Union is industrial relation and peace though based on observation of the Supreme Court. The further finding of the Tribunal is that in the case of other parties, the settlement between representatives of Unions/ headload workers and contractors provide for payment of bonus at various rates. Even though the Tribunal has relied on this practice in the industry for deciding the case in favour of the second respondent, we feel this goes against the second respondent because even though loading and unloading work in the appellant's depot were controlled by agreements, admittedly there was no provision for payment of bonus to the loading and unloading workers in such agreements. This pre-supposes that all the terms of engagement of the members of second respondent Union were covered by agreement and unless the agreement provides for payment of bonus, they are not entitled to claim the same unless statute provides for the same. This pre-supposes that all the terms of engagement of the members of second respondent Union were covered by agreement and unless the agreement provides for payment of bonus, they are not entitled to claim the same unless statute provides for the same. As we have already noticed that headload workers who were engaged whenever work was available and who were simultaneously doing same work for other organizations at their choice, cannot claim to be employees of the appellant. The nature of work and the relationship between the appellant and members of second respondent-Union in regard to loading and unloading work is such that there is no supervision or control and no employer-employee relationship exists between them. In these circumstances, they are not entitled to bonus under the Act. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowing the Writ Petition by vacating the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal.