Judgment Dipak Misra, J. ( 1. ) These two appeals preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity the Act) being inter-linked and inter-connected were heard analogously and are disposed of by a common order. ( 2. ) In Writ Appeal No-24/2006 it is the writ petitioner in W.P.No-2242/2001 General Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas, which has called in question the sustainability and substantiality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. ( 3. ) In W.A.No.335/2006 the Bank Note Press Office Staff Association Dewas and another employee who were respondents in the writ petition being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the modification of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal by the learned Single Judge, have called the pregnability of the same in question. ( 4. ) In view of the aforesaid it is necessitous to adumbrate the factual matrix in a common canvas so that the points urged by both the parties in the appeals can be properly appreciated. The Bank Note Press, Dewas is a Government of India Undertaking registered under the Factories Act and is engaged in production, distribution, sale, etc. of various items. The factory has various sections such as Control, Printing, Plate Making, Store Workshop, Dispensary, Canteen, Estate Administration, etc. The employees are required to work overtime to augment the production. The Press is highly mechanized and individuals complement in the productive measures. With the view to increase production the Management introduced an incentive scheme on 01.9.1977. Under the said scheme certain incentives (bonus) were extended to the employees excluding the employees working in the Instate and Dispensary and Office Staff. The Bank Note Press Office Staff Association (hereinafter referred to as the Union) the appellant in W.A.No.335/2006 being dissatisfied with the Scheme as it had excluded certain categories of employees raised an industrial dispute. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the appropriate Government which refused to refer the same for adjudication. Being aggrieved by the said action the Union preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.255/1985 and by order dated 16-01-89 a Division Bench of this Court directed the appropriate Government to make a reference. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial tribunal. Jabalpur for adjudication. Being aggrieved by the said action the Union preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.255/1985 and by order dated 16-01-89 a Division Bench of this Court directed the appropriate Government to make a reference. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial tribunal. Jabalpur for adjudication. The term of reference reads as under: "Whether the demand of the workman working in Bank Note Press Dewas and represented by Bank Note Mudranalaya Shramik Sangh and Bank Note Office Staff Association for grant of incentive to office, - Canteen, dispensary and Estate staff under Group incentive Scheme at par with etc. BNP with retrospective Staff from 3-9-1977 is Justified? If.so, what relief the workmen are entitled and from what date?" ( 5. ) The Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the material brought before it and the evidence adduced came to hold that there is discrimination in respect of nonpayment of the bonus (incentive) to the employees working in the Office, Estate Staff. Dispensary and Canteen and there is no justification for non-payment of bonus or less payment to the workers and accordingly passed the award in favour of the Union directing the Management to pay full bonus of Group Incentive Scheme to the said categories of employees with effect from 01.01.1978. within a period of three months with the further stipulation that if the amount was not paid within the aforesaid period the employees would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount. ( 6. ) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the General Manager, Bank Note Press knocked at the doors of this Court in a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia, that the award passed by the Tribunal is bereft of appropriate reasons: that there had been no discussion on the evidence and the documents brought on record to arrive at the conclusion that there was discrimination: that the scheme had been introduced on the basis of the recommendations of a private agency, namely. M/s.IBCON Pvt. Ltd. and the agency classified the workers between the industrial and non- industrial and as per their contribution in the production the bonus was granted as there was apposite and relevant classification: that the tribunal has grossly erred by concluding that there was discrimination: that the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur and Calcutta under the similar circumstances has rejected the payment of the employees working in the Office at par with the industrial workers working in the Factory. ( 7. ) The respondent-Union supported the award passed by the tribunal contending inter alia, that the Management itself had considered the dues of the workers working in the Office and had granted them the benefit of incentive bonus of 25%: the canteen workers had been extended benefit of 100% at par with the industrial workers: that there is no rationale for discrimination and the classification made by the Management: that no expert was consulted prior to granting of benefit to the canteen workers; that the workers and the employees working in the Office are entitled to the same benefit which had been granted to the canteen workers. The learned Single Judge asserting the factual position referred to the report of M/s. IBCON Pvt. Ltd. and the acceptance of the report by the Government of India. The learned Single Judge analysed the object of the scheme the eligibility for group incentive scheme for Bank Note Press, Dewas. After stating so the learned Single Judge noted the facts that the expert agency had not granted incentive benefits to the employees working in the Dispensary, State and Staff of Canteen. He took note of the fact that by a subsequent notification the canteen employees had been given 100% incentive at par with direct workers who had been included in the category. The employees working in the Dispensary, Estate and Office Staff had been given only 25% incentive. Before grant of 100% incentive bonus to the Canteen employees, the expert agency M/s. IBCON Pvt. Ltd. had not been consulted, this factual position, be it noted, was not disputed, before the learned Single Judge by the Management. After stating the facts the learned Single Judge, as is manifest, addressed himself with regard to the rationale for grant of 100% incentive bonus to the canteen workers, 25% incentive bonus to the employees working in the Dispensary. Estate and Office Staff. After stating the facts the learned Single Judge, as is manifest, addressed himself with regard to the rationale for grant of 100% incentive bonus to the canteen workers, 25% incentive bonus to the employees working in the Dispensary. Estate and Office Staff. The learned Single Judge by testing the justifiability of the award addressed himself with regard to the contribution of Canteen employees in production in comparison to the employees working in the Dispensary, State and Office Staff. He also took note of the fact of the data with regard to the total strength of the employees in the establishment which had been included in the incentive scheme which is 2000 out of which 45 had been working in the Canteen and about 300 had been working in the Dispensary. Estate and Office Staff. ( 8. ) It was admitted before the learned Single Judge that incentive bonus scheme is not the part and parcel of the regular wages because it has relation with enhancement of production and, therefore, criteria for grant of incentive bonus as per the Scheme depends upon participation of the employees for enhancement of production. The expert body employed by the Management granted benefit of incentive bonus to the employees on the foundation of their contribution and participation in production: The learned Single Judge referring to certain decisions and analyzing the factual matrix expressed the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no rationale or cogent reasons to give differential treatment and different percentage of incentive bonus to the employees working in the Canteen and the employees working in the Office. Estate and Dispensary. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge did not accept the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur- in T.A.No. 116/80 and O.A.No.722/90 by the said Tribunal on the ground of factual difference and in any case. grant of incentive bonus to the Canteen employees had not been considered. Being of this view the learned Single Judge concurred with the view expressed by the Industrial Tribunal that the employees are entitled to the incentive bonus with effect from 1-11-86 and not from the initial date of introduction of the scheme and further they would not be entitled to interest as directed by the tribunal. ( 9. ) We have heard Mr.Brain Da Silva. ( 9. ) We have heard Mr.Brain Da Silva. learned Senior Counsel alongwith Mr.Vivek Patwa for the appellant in W.A.No.24/2006 preferred by the Management and Mr.G.M.Chapekar. learned senior counsel alongwith Mr.Manish Nair. Advocate for the appellant-Union in W.A.No.335/2006. 9. It is submitted by Mr.Brain Da Silva. learned senior counsel appearing for the Management has raised the following contentions :- (a) The learned Single Judge has fallen into grave error by not perceiving unmistakable difference between the productive unit and non-productive sector in the factory and expressed the opinion that there has been discrimination without any rationale and thereby concurring with the view expressed by the Industrial tribunal which entailed in fallacious conclusion. (b) The learned Single Judge would have been well advised to hold that the workers in the canteen stand on a different footing and the staff in the office especially in the factory stand on a different pedestal and the concept of grant of incentive to the canteen workers in the form of bonus is some thing different and hence, the staff in the office cannot claim parity. (c ) The learned Single Judge should have taken note of the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal had rejected the demand of employees, therefore, it would have been apt and appropriate to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal. (d) The Industrial Tribunal could have determined the fixation of incentive bonus as that is the functioning beyond the Expert Committee and as it has done that exercise the learned Single Judge should have dislodged the said award as it goes to the root of the matter instead of modifying it. To bolster his submissions the learned senior counsel has commended us to the decisions rendered in M/s.Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen etc. AIR 1959 SC 1095 . M/s.Burn and Co. Ltd., Howrah Iron Works Howrah Vs. Their Employees and another, AIR 1960 SC 896 , M/s. National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Belur Vs. The Workmen and another. AIR 1963 SC 325 , Mukund Ltd. Vs. Mukund Staff and Officers Association, AIR 2004 SC 3905 . ( 10. ) Mr.Chapekar. learned senior counsel alongwith Mr.Manish Nair. M/s.Burn and Co. Ltd., Howrah Iron Works Howrah Vs. Their Employees and another, AIR 1960 SC 896 , M/s. National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Belur Vs. The Workmen and another. AIR 1963 SC 325 , Mukund Ltd. Vs. Mukund Staff and Officers Association, AIR 2004 SC 3905 . ( 10. ) Mr.Chapekar. learned senior counsel alongwith Mr.Manish Nair. Advocate for the Union has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge as far as he has accepted the order of the tribunal with regard to the finding recorded by him that the office staff is entitled to incentive. Learned senior counsel in support of his appeal has submitted that there was no justification on the part of the learned single Judge to curtail the benefit restricting it from the date 01.11.1986. Learned senior counsel further submitted that there was no warrant not to grant interest which was extended by the tribunal in the absence of any kind of special reasons. ( 11. ) To appreciate the submissions raised at the bar we have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and that of the tribunal. Before we dwell upon the finding recorded by the tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge with regard to entitlement of the office staff on the bedrock of discrimination it is apposite to refer to certain decisions with regard to the jurisdiction of the tribunal for grant of relief, especially the incentive bonus in the factual backdrop. ( 12. ) In Western India Automobiles Association Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and others, AIR (36) 1949 federal Court III their Lordships have opined that the award of the tribunal may contain a provision for settlement of the dispute which no court could order if it was bound by ordinary law, but the tribunal is not fettered in any way by these limitations. ( 13. ) In M/s.Titagurh Paper Mills Co. (supra) the Constitution Bench has expressed the view on following terms.:- "(9).........The payment of production bonus depends upon production and is in addition to wages. In effect, it is an incentive to higher production and is in the nature of an incentive wage. ( 13. ) In M/s.Titagurh Paper Mills Co. (supra) the Constitution Bench has expressed the view on following terms.:- "(9).........The payment of production bonus depends upon production and is in addition to wages. In effect, it is an incentive to higher production and is in the nature of an incentive wage. There are various plans prevalent in other countries for this purpose known as Incentive wage Plans worked out on various bases, for example, Halsey Premium Plan, Haynes Munit System and Emerson Efficiency Bonus Plan: (see Labour Law by Smith, Second Edition, p-723). The simplest of such plans is the straight piece-rate plan where payment is made according to each piece produced, subject in some cases to a guaranteed minimum wage for so many hours work. But the straight piece-rate system cannot -work where the finished product is the result of the cooperative effort of a large number of workers each doing a small part which contributes to the result. In such cases, production bonus by tonnage produced, as in this case, is given. There is a base or standard above which extra payment is made for extra production in addition to the basic wage. Such a plan typically guarantees time wage up to the time represented by standard performance and gives workers a share in the savings represented by superior performance. But whatever may be the nature of the plan the payment in effect is an extra emolument for extra effort but in by workmen over the standard that may be fixed. That is the reason why all these plans are known as Incentive Wage Plans and generally speaking have little to do with profits. The. extra payment depends not on extra profits hut on extra production. This extra payment calculated on the basis of extra production is in a case like the present where the payment is made after the annual production is known, in the nature of emoluments paid at the end of the year. Therefore generally speaking, payment of production bonus is nothing more nor less than a payment of further emoluments depending upon production as an incentive to the workmen to put in more than the standard performance. Production bonus in this case also is of this nature and is nothing and is nothing more than additional emolument paid as an incentive for higher production................" ( 14. Production bonus in this case also is of this nature and is nothing and is nothing more than additional emolument paid as an incentive for higher production................" ( 14. ) In the said case their Lordships dealt with the power of the tribunal as regards the delineation with regard to grant of bonus under the scheme and expressed the view as under:- "10...........We are, however, not called upon to decide in this case whether a demand for the introduction a production bonus scheme where there, was none before can be made a subject-matter of industrial dispute as defined in S. 2(k) of the Act or whether a scheme of production bonus can for the first time be imposed on the employer by a tribunal under the Act. The problem that is before us is whether the tribunal under the Act will have jurisdiction to deal with a production bonus scheme, in a concern where it has been introduced. The answer to this question depends upon the terms of the Act and not on the consideration whether the scheme can be initiated only by the employer in the first instance. In order that the tribunal may have jurisdiction all that is necessary is that an industrial dispute within the meaning of S.2(k) of the Act should exist, or be apprehended and there should be a reference of such dispute by the appropriate government to the tribunal under S.10. Now industrial dispute has been defined in very wide terms in S.2(k) and for our purpose it means an dispute or difference between the employer and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the term of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. We have already held that the production bonus scheme in this case is an incentive wage plan and what is paid under the scheme over and above the basic wage is supplementary emoluments depending upon annual production. A dispute arising about such an emolument clearly comes within the words "terms of employment". We have already held that the production bonus scheme in this case is an incentive wage plan and what is paid under the scheme over and above the basic wage is supplementary emoluments depending upon annual production. A dispute arising about such an emolument clearly comes within the words "terms of employment". As soon therefore as an employer introduces a production bonus scheme and the same is put in operation and the workmen accept it, it becomes a term of employment of the workmen working under him and any dispute with respect to such a term of employment, is an industrial dispute and if it is referred to a tribunal under S. 10 as has been done in this case, it has jurisdiction under S. 15 to deal with it. The argument therefore on his head must be reacted and it must be held that the tribunal had jurisdiction under the Act to deal with the scheme of production bonus which had been introduced in this company and was in force at all material times. ( 15. ) In the said case it has been further held as follows:-"(12)..........On a parity of reasoning, the Industrial Tribunal has the power under the Act to revise the production bonus scheme once it has been initiated. It will do so only for good and cogent reasons, such as a material change in method, product, tools, material, design, or production conditions, or a saving in labour cost and the like, maintaining as far as possible the established relationship between earnings and effort and avoiding rates which will give results out of all proportion to the basic wage......." ( 16. ) In M/s.Burn and Co. (supra) il has been held as follows:- "(4).........It is also true that the clerical staff and the subordinate staff do not directly produce goods like manual workers and that may be a reason for treating them somewhat differently in the matter of incentive bonus and that is what the tribunal seems to have done, for it has directed the company to extend the scheme of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff and to lay down the rates and conditions of the same and has not said that exactly the same rates and conditions should apply to the clerical and subordinate staff as apply to the manual workers. But there can be no doubt that economically speaking the clerical staff and the subordinate staff also take part in the production and there is no reason therefore for excluding them altogether from the scheme of incentive bonus. Besides, as the tribunal has pointed out, in other comparable concerns incentive bonus is being paid to the clerical and subordinate staff. The fact that dearness allowance was paid to the clerical staff at a higher scale is also, in our opinion, no reason for depriving them altogether of the benefits of the incentive bonus scheme." (Emphasis supplied) ( 17. ) In National Iron and Steel Co.Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has referred to its earlier decision rendered in M/s.Titagurh Paper Mills Co. (supra) and expressed the view that once a scheme of incentive bonus is introduced and such bonus becomes a condition of service of workmen the Industrial tribunal has the jurisdiction to vary the terms of the scheme enforced by the employer including the rate of bonus. After reiterating the said view their Lordships held mat when the tribunal has adequate data forjudging what would be reasonable and proper targets from the point of view of both the employers and the employees and what would be the reasonable rates of incentive bonus, it can so do. As in the said case there was no proper material the Apex Court opined that in the absence of the appropriate material the award passed by the tribunal deserves to be quashed. Be it noted that in the said case the Apex Court opined that ordinarily the rate of incentive bonus is co-related to the target and that is the question to be decided by the tribunal. In the said case their Lordships further proceeded to state which we think apt to reproduce:-"(22) We may further point out that in Burn and Co. s case, 1960-3 SCR 423: ( AIR 1960 SC 896 ) the Tribunal did not proceed to lay down the rate of incentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff but merely directed the company to extend the scheme to them and lay down the rates and conditions for those classes of workmen to be entitled to get the incentive bonus. This Court has impliedly approved this direction. This Court has impliedly approved this direction. Indeed, bearing in mind the principle that initially the whole question of incentive bonus involving the fixation of targets, prescribing rates, and laying down other conditions is the function of the management, we have no doubt that the course taken by the Tribunal in Burn and Co. s case, 1960-3 SCR 423 : ( AIR 1960 SC 896 ) was the proper one." ( 18. ) In Western India Watch Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 472 the Apex Court while dealing with the issue whether the employer is required to pay the production bonus to the workman-employees in the sales office expressed the view as under: - "9.......It is enough to mention that among the many tests that have been evolved, functional integrality, inter-dependence, or community of financial control and management, community of man-power and of its control, recruitment and discipline, the manner in which the employer has organized the different activities, whether he has treated them as independent, of one another or as inter-connected and inter-dependent, enjoy pride of place. But this list is by no means exhaustive." ( 19. ) In the said case their Lordships further proceeded to state that the tests and principles that have been laid down cannot be applied mechanically or by way of syllogism. Their Lordships after discussing the various facets that the production bonus scheme should be extended to the Sales Office Staff remanded the matter to the tribunal for decision after taking all relevant facts whether the production bonus scheme in force in the factory and the factory staff should be extended to the Sales Office Staff with or without modification. The remit was directed as certain factual aspects were to be dealt with relating to salary paid to the office staff and other benefits but as a principle it was held that the scheme should be extended to the Sales Office Staff. ( 20. ) In Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another. AIR 1975 SC 1114 the Apex Court referred to the decision rendered in M/s. Burn Standard Co. ( 20. ) In Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another. AIR 1975 SC 1114 the Apex Court referred to the decision rendered in M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra) opined that when the scheme in question is called a productive incentive scheme and the benefit of the scheme has been extended to the Sewage Treatment Plant workers, the workers of the scrap and the workers of the Salvage Department, Time Keepers and Time Checkers and such other categories of workers with regard to whom it is not quite clear in what sense they are said to contribute to the production, the bus drivers employed by the company were entitled to the benefit of scheme as the bus drivers driving the bus may be taken to the plant as a truck drivers. ( 21. ) We would be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the decision rendered in Mukund Ltd. (supra) on which the learned senior counsel has placed immense emphasis. On a perusal of the said judgment we have no scintilla of doubt that the said decision does not assist the learned counsel for the appellant- employer as the factual matrix is absolutely different, in the case at hand the matter relates to the conferral of benefit of incentive bonus because of the introduction of the scheme by the employer but in the case which was the subject- matter before their Lordships pertained to the grant of basic wages to the workman as well as non-workman. It is seemly to state here that the same is not the issue here. Accordingly, we distinguish the said decision. ( 22. ) From the aforesaid pronouncements of law the principles that can be culled out are that once the employer has introduced a bonus production scheme and the same, is put in operation it becomes a term of employment of the workmen working under him; that the production bonus is an additional emolument as an incentive for higher production: that the Industrial tribunal has the jurisdiction to deal with the scheme once it is introduced by the employer; that the tribunal has the power to revise the production bonus scheme once it has been initiated on certain cogent grounds like material change in method, product, tools, material, design, etc. that there is distinction between the Fixation of rate of incentive bonus by the tribunal and issue of a direction to extend the scheme relating to bonus and economically speaking the clerical staff and the subordinate staff also take part in the production and there is no reason for excluding them from the scheme of the incentive bonus; and that the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to issue a direction to the employer to grant the benefit of the scheme to the clerical staff and subordinate staff. ( 23. ) The present factual matrix is to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles. It is unmistakably clear from the factual exposition that in June. 1975 M/s. IBCON Pvt.Ltd., a Firm of Industrial and Business Consultants was engaged by the appellant-employer to carry out the time and motion study and formulate an incentive scheme to boost the production. The said consultant company submitted its report and the Government of India accepted the same. The said scheme was introduced to increase production. The said Committee further proposed to help the workers earn additional monetary benefits without working for more than 9 hours per day and to discourage the absenteeism amongst the workers. The scheme covered various other categories of employees, namely. Direct Industrial Workers of the Printing, Control Department and Ink Factory, Essential Indirect workers of the Workshop, Stores (Security. Non-security and Ink Factory Stores) and Time Keeping Office (Head Time Keepers only). Supervisory staff on the shop floor who are observing the same working hours and holidays as the factory and whose presence throughout is necessary for efficient working of the industrial workers, Non-essential indirect workers of the Canteen. Dispensary Hospital, Estate and Office. Initially, the employees working in Dispensary, Hospital, Estate, Office Staff and Canteen were not included in the incentive bonus scheme but subsequently vide notification dated 01.7.82. the aforesaid workers were granted 25% incentive bonus and included in the scheme. By further notification dated 1.11.86 the canteen employees were granted 100% incentive bonus and added as an essential-indirect workers treating them at par with the direct workers and essential indirect workers. the aforesaid workers were granted 25% incentive bonus and included in the scheme. By further notification dated 1.11.86 the canteen employees were granted 100% incentive bonus and added as an essential-indirect workers treating them at par with the direct workers and essential indirect workers. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the consulting agency had not recommended for grant of any incentive bonus to the employees working in the Dispensary, Estate, Official Staff and Canteen but by subsequent notification the canteen employees and other categories of employees were included and granted 25% incentive and thereafter 100% incentive bonus to the canteen employees though the expert agency was not consulted. ( 24. ) Submission of Mr.Da Silva, learned senior counsel is that the canteen workers stand on a different footing than the Dispensary, Estate and Official staff. It is urged by him that the classification is correct and the tribunal has grossly erred by putting him in the same pedestal. It is contended by him that the canteen employees have been given 100% benefit but subsequently notified as industrial workers by the government. The Industrial Tribunal, as is manifest, has expressed the opinion that the contribution of the canteen employees in comparison to the employees working in Dispensary, Estate and Official Staff cannot be made and the said class cannot be put on a higher pedestal. The.tribunal has adverted to the factual matrix and come to hold that the employees who are working in the canteen are serving meals or sweeping and cleaning the floor of the canteen. They are admittedly not directly related with the production. The employees who are working in the Dispensary, Estate and Official Staff have some nexus with the production, keeping in view the role ascribed to them and comparing them with the canteen workers. It is worth noting that initially the canteen workers and the workers working in Dispensary, Estate and Official Staff were extended the benefit of 25% . Thereafter, the canteen workers have been given 100% bonus with effect from 1.11.86 but the other categories were denied. As has been held by the Apex Court in M/s.Burn Standard and Co.Ltd. (supra) there can be no doubt that economically speaking the clerical staff and the subordinate staff also take part in the production and there is no reason therefore for excluding them altogether from the scheme of incentive bonus. As has been held by the Apex Court in M/s.Burn Standard and Co.Ltd. (supra) there can be no doubt that economically speaking the clerical staff and the subordinate staff also take part in the production and there is no reason therefore for excluding them altogether from the scheme of incentive bonus. Their Lordships have opined in National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) that the tribunal can direct the employer to extend the scheme to a particular categories of workmen to get the bonus. Here the facts are tale tell. The employer extended the benefit to the canteen workers and to the workman in the Dispensary, Estate and Official Staff. They were treated at par. The expert body had not included the said categories, the employer in its wisdom and extended the benefit of incentive bonus scheme to them at25%. What could have been the rate is a different matter, but a pregnant and significant one, later on the canteen workers were extended the benefit of 100% from 01.11.86. A classification is sought to be drawn on the foundation that they have been included as they have been notified as industrial workers by the government. It is clear from various judgments which we have referred to above that under the incentive bonus scheme the workers got the emoluments on certain basis. The only reason ascribed is that the canteen workers later on have been notified as industrial workers. Nothing has been brought on record that the Dispensary. Estate and Official Staff are not the workmen and ceased to be the workmen. The learned Single Judge has referred to the concept of Articles 14 and the equality clause as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysore Vs. P.Narsinga Rao. AIR 1968 SC 349 . M.P.Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P. and another, (2004) 4 SCC 646 and opined that there is no rationale to give differential treatment and different percentage of incentive bonus to the employees working in canteen and employees working in the Dispensary. Estate and Official Staff. In our considered opinion the analysis made in that regard is absolutely justified as it meets the normative paradigm. ( 25. ) Another aspect which has been highlighted by Mr.Brain Da Silva. learned counsel for the appellant-employer is that the Central Administrative Tribunal. Estate and Official Staff. In our considered opinion the analysis made in that regard is absolutely justified as it meets the normative paradigm. ( 25. ) Another aspect which has been highlighted by Mr.Brain Da Silva. learned counsel for the appellant-employer is that the Central Administrative Tribunal. Calcutta Bench in certain original applications had rejected the same relief and, therefore, the Industrial Tribunal could not have dwelled into it. The learned Single Judge in the order impugned has addressed itself to the same and come to hold that in the said case the grant of incentive bonus to the canteen employees has not been considered. The learned Single Judge has opined by placing reliance on the decision rendered in Union of India Vs. Chaju Ram, 2003 5 SCC 568 that the decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. That apart, the Industrial Court has dealt with the jurisdictional faces and the facts in issue and recorded a finding. Nothing has been brought on record that there had been similar adjudication or delineation. The tribunal has appreciated the material which constituted ample and sufficient base for recording the findings. The approach undertaken by the tribunal is absolutely objective and findings recorded by it clearly exposit reasonableness. There is no perversity of approach. Hence, perceive no error in the conclusion that the Dispensary. Estate and Official Staff cannot be treated differently than the canteen staff. ( 26. ) Presently to the modification of the order of the tribunal by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has modified the award passed by the tribunal to the effect that the Dispensary, Estate and Official staff would be entitled to the incentive bonus at par with the canteen employees and from the same date with effect from 1.11.86 and not from the initial date of introduction of the scheme. The learned Single Judge has held that the employees would not be entitled to any interest on the amount which is payable to them as per the direction given by the tribunal. The learned Single Judge has further clarified that no direction should be issued to the canteen employees as they have already given the benefit. The learned Single Judge has held that the employees would not be entitled to any interest on the amount which is payable to them as per the direction given by the tribunal. The learned Single Judge has further clarified that no direction should be issued to the canteen employees as they have already given the benefit. Submission ofMr.Chapekar is that when the reference is to the effect whether the Office, Canteen, Dispensary and Estate Staff under Group Incentive Scheme at par with other employees should get the benefit from 03.9.1977 and the tribunal had granted full benefits with effect from 01.1.78 with 12% interest per annum there was no justification on the part of the learned Single Judge to modify the same. It is worth noting that the employer had extended 25% to all categories of workers on its own. 100% incentive bonus was given to the canteen employees from 1.11.86. This is so because the scheme was introduced by the employer on its own. The reasoning of the tribunal to grant it from 1.1.78 is neither just nor proper because the employer had accepted 25% initially. The distinction between the canteen workers and others state only came into fore front on 1.11.86 when the canteen workers were given 100% bonus. The tribunal in its wisdom should have given interest from that date and not from the prior date. Thus, we do not find any error in the said modification by the learned Single Judge. ( 27. ) As far as deletion of interest in toto in concerned submission of Mr.Chapekar is that the learned Single Judge has fallen into grave error by opining that the employees would not be entitled to any interest on the amount which is payable to them despite the direction for payment of incentive bonus with effect from 01.11.86. Submission of Mr.Chapekar is that the High Court was not sitting in appeal and when the tribunal had granted interest the learned Single Judge could not have totally annihilated it inasmuch as by such deletion of interest injustice has been caused. On a First blush the aforesaid submission of Mr. Chapekar, learned senior counsel looks quite attractive but on a keener scrutiny it pales into insignificance . On a First blush the aforesaid submission of Mr. Chapekar, learned senior counsel looks quite attractive but on a keener scrutiny it pales into insignificance . Interference by the High Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution as regards denial fact or findings based on material evidence is different than passing an order which strikes a balance or moulds a direction by taking note of various factors. True it is the learned Single Judge has not ascribed reasons but in an intra-court appeal certain facts can he taken note. The employer itself had introduced a scheme and under the erroneous impression it opined that the canteen workers stand on a different footing. It has come out on record that the canteen workers are 45 in number and Dispensary. Estate and Official Staff are more than 300. the employer had been misguided by some notion of productive sector and non-productive sector without being guided by the facet that clerical staff and official staff have a role to play in the production and further there was no reason to discriminate between the canteen workers and the workers working in Dispensary, Estate and Official Staff. The Industrial Disputes Act is a piece of legislation which has been brought into existence for industrial harmony. The collective and the individual interests are to be balanced. The grant of interest from 1.11.86 to all the workers would cause heavy financial burden on the employer, there is no mandatory and statutory provision to grant interest. In view of the aforesaid the writ court can curtail the relief and that would not tantamount to interfering in the question jurisdictional fact which is based on ample of evidence or material fact. ( 28. ) The question then would be whether the total denial of interest would be absolutely just and proper or there should he balancing direction by the writ court. In a case of this nature, we are disposed to think is that a balance should have been struck. The total denial of interest by the learned Single Judge, as we perceive, does not exposit a balancing phenomenon. We are inclined to grant interest at the rate of 6% per annum for a period of three years on the accrued incentive bonus as that would sub-serve the cause of justice. We have so thought regard being had to the facts which we have mentioned hereinabove. We are inclined to grant interest at the rate of 6% per annum for a period of three years on the accrued incentive bonus as that would sub-serve the cause of justice. We have so thought regard being had to the facts which we have mentioned hereinabove. ( 29. ) In the result, the writ appeal preferred by the employer stands dismissed and the writ appeal filed by the workmen is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed.