JUDGMENT : SANJU PANDA, J.-In this writ has this petition, the Petitioners management In challenged the award dated 23.08.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case NO.46 of 2006 directing it to pay ex-gratia to the workmen for the year 2001-2002 & 2002-2003 @ 6000 or 75% of the basic pay whichever is less forthwith & further holding that the workmen, of M/s. Utkal Co-operative Banking Society Ltd., Bhubaneswar were not entitled to the medical allowance. 2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows: The Petitioner is 'a Co-operative' Banking Society Ltd. registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter in short as "the Act. 1962") & the Class-I" & above grade employees of Orissa Secretariat & the Heads of Department of Cuttack & Bhubaneswar are only entitled to be the members of the Society. The final authority of the Society vests in its General Body as provided under Section 27 of the Act, 1962. As per Section 28 of the Act, 1962, the management of the Society vests in a Committee constituted in accordance with the Act, Rules & Bye-laws. The Committee of the Society is elected by the members of the Society in its General Body meeting. The Society has been approved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society & the Bye-law is effective from the day when the Society is registered. Section 56 of the Act, 1962 makes provision regarding disposal, of net profit of a Society. Sub-Section 2 (e) of Section 56 provides that the net profit after payment stipulated under sub- Section (1) may be utilized for payment of bonus to the employees of the Society to the extent & in the manner as 'specified in the Bye-laws. Clause 52 of the Bye-law also provides as to how the net profit will be distributed. .3. The Petitioner-Society employed more than 20 persons & as such the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter in short as "the Act, 1965") is applicable to the society. As per the Act; 1965, an employee, receiving salary or wages more than Rs.3,500 per month, is not entitled to an bonus. Therefore, a dispute arose between the management of the Petitioner-Society & the Employees' Association regarding payment of bonus @ 20% for the year 1990-91 & the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Orissa in I.D. Case NO.34 of 1993. Therefore, a dispute arose between the management of the Petitioner-Society & the Employees' Association regarding payment of bonus @ 20% for the year 1990-91 & the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Orissa in I.D. Case NO.34 of 1993. During that year, the management offered bonus @ 16% on certain grounds. The Tribunal passed award on 18.12.1995 holding that bonus @ 20% was payable on the basis of allocable surplus determined in accordance with Section 11 read with Section 2 (4) & Section 5 of the Act, 1965. The Tribunal also held that the employees would be entitled to bonus @ 20% for the years subsequent to 1991 as well. The said award was challenged by the Petitioner in O.J.C. NO.2934 of 1996 & this Court while disposing of the said Writ Petition on 06.12.1996 held as follows: "In view of the terms of reference Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction in declaring 'that the women are entitled to bonus at the rate of 20% even for the years after 1990-91. Accordingly, we set aside that part of the award by which the employees demand for the periods after accounting year 1990-91 has been accepted. The award of the Industrial Tribunal will be confined only to the account year 1990-91." 4. After disposal of the Writ Petition, the matter was placed before the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Society & vide Resolution dated 16.12.1996, the Managing Committee decided to pay bonus to the employees for the years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 @ 20% as decided by this Court. However, the Committee also decided that such payment for the subsequent years shall be paid only after determination of allocable surplus in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1965. It is pertinent to mention here that the Act, 1965 was amended & the limit of RS.1600 per month was increased to RS.3,500 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1993. The employees of the Petitioner-Society were receiving salary & wages more than Rs. 1600 up to 1.4.1993 & Rs.3,500 from 1.4.1993 onwards, as such, the employees were not entitled to receive any bonus for the year 1991 & onwards. The employees of the Petitioner-Society were receiving salary & wages more than Rs. 1600 up to 1.4.1993 & Rs.3,500 from 1.4.1993 onwards, as such, the employees were not entitled to receive any bonus for the year 1991 & onwards. However, with mala fide intention, an office note was moved for payment of bonus/ex gratia referring to the Board's Resolution dated 16.12.1996 even though the Board had not whispered anything regarding payment of ex-gratia to the employees, whose salaries exceeded above the maximum' slab of wages & as such they were not entitled to get any bonus. The above proposal of the office note was not approved by the then authority as the same was not in accordance with the Resolution of the Banking Society. Thereafter, the then Society moved another proposal for payment of bonus which was agreed to on 18.12.1996 & approved accordingly. However, the then Secretary-in-Charge manipulated his note overwriting the sanctioned amount written in digit (not in words) & issued office order on 20.12.1996 changing the date of signature of the authority in respect of bonus/ex-gratia, whereas the management had only resolved to pay bonus to the employees, a copy of which of the note sheet dated 16.12.1996 to 20.12.1996 has been filed as Annexure-2. Accordingly, the amount of bonus was calculated in respect of all the employees for the years 1991 to 1994-95 amounting to Rs.5,45,966 @ 20% without excluding the exempted employees. As it appears, in the note sheet, the amount was over written which was visible clearly. On the basis of the said manipulation, Office Order Dated 20.12.1996 was also issued under the signature of the then Secretary-in- Charge, Sri B.C. Rout, who was an employee of the Bank &'a beneficiary of the manipulated order for payment of the ex-gratia as aforesaid. Under the above circumstances, the employees of the Petitioner society were able to draw the benefit of ex-gratia illegally by adopting fraudulent means when the elected committee of the Management was not in the office. Under the above circumstances, the employees of the Petitioner society were able to draw the benefit of ex-gratia illegally by adopting fraudulent means when the elected committee of the Management was not in the office. The elected committee of the management came into office on 14.10.1997 & when this fraud was detected, the committee of management in its meeting dated 16.3.1998 decided that the amount of ex-gratia received by the ineligible employees drawing salary more than the limit fixed under the Act, 1965 .should be refunded & accordingly, office Order Dated 27.3.1998 was issued for recovery of the illegal benefit drawn by seven to such employees. The elected member of the management was again superseded & a management-in-charge of the Society was appointed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Registrar, however, on 26.11.1999. again decided not to cause any further recovery & not to refund the amount already recovered by canceling the earlier Order Dated 27.3.1998. While the matter stood thus, the accounts of the Bank was audited by the auditors of the Co-operation Department. The Director of Co-operative Audit issued a circular on 28.10.2002 informing all concerned including the Co-operative Banks that the employees of the Co-operative Society were only entitled to bonus as per the Payment of Bonus Act & no Society can distribute the profit, if any by way of ex-gratia. The Committee of the Management came to the office on 16.06.2003 & the General Body in its meeting dated 29.6.2003 objected for payment of ex-gratia to the employees & decided to divert Rs.3,12,000 towards building fund instead of payment of ex-gratia to the employees. After calculation made by the President, it was decided to allow payment of ex-gratia to the employees for the year 2001-02 since all the employees were drawing salary/wages more than the maximum slab of Rs.3,500. However, the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 30.8.2003 modified the decision to pay ex-gratia to the employees @ 20% instead of resolving to pay the same @ Rs.6,000 or 75% of the basic pay whichever is less. But the employees of the Bank did not accept the decision of the management & raised objection. Accordingly, the proposal for payment of ex-gratia was kept in abeyance by resolution dated 16.10.2003. But the employees of the Bank did not accept the decision of the management & raised objection. Accordingly, the proposal for payment of ex-gratia was kept in abeyance by resolution dated 16.10.2003. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 3.3.2004 informed the Chief Executive of the Petitioner-Society raising objection on payment of ex-gratia to the employees of the Society by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court in O.J.C: NO.2934 of 1996 as well as the Resolution of the Committee of Management dated 16.12.1996 & instructed to recover the amount paid towards ex-gratia, as the same was not due to the employees because there is no provision in the Act & Rules in that respect. The Registrar, Co- operative Societies by another letter dated 3.3.2004 asked the Auditor General of Co-operative Societies to cause a special audit on the illegal payment of ex-gratia to the ineligible employees of the Society. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the .General Body Meeting of the Society & it was unanimously decided not to pay any ex-gratia since there was no statutory obligation for making any such payment nor the Orissa Co-operative Society Act, Rules or the Bye-laws stipulates anything in this regard. Accordingly, the General Body passed a resolution on 28.3.2004 with regard to reapportionment of the amount of Rs.3,12,000 towards, building funds instead of ex gratia. Accordingly, Industrial Dispute was raised on payment of ex-gratia for the years 2001-02 & 200203 & the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case NO.46 of 2006. 5. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the management-in-charge, who was continuing in the year 1998 has no jurisdiction to take a decision on payment of ex-gratia in absence of elected committee of the management. The said incharge management cancelled the earlier order for recovery of ex-gratia payment already sanctioned to the employees & recovered the amount already sanctioned. He further submits that the Tribunal without considering the fraud committed by the persons who are the beneficiaries, passed the impugned award, therefore, the impugned order needs interference. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & ors reported in 2007 AIR SCW 956. 6. Learned Counsel for the Opp. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & ors reported in 2007 AIR SCW 956. 6. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party, however, supported the impugned award & submitted that the Auditor General, Cooperative Societies issued a circular on 28.10.2002 raising objection regarding payment of bonus/ex gratia to the employees of the Cooperative Organizations, for which the General Body in its meeting dated 29.06.2003 vide Agenda No.3 resolved that "The President clarified that the Bank was appropriating profit towards payment of ex-gratia since long & as such the appropriation made so far under ex-gratia may be retained". After due clarification the house distributed net profit as per the provisions of Bye-laws & OCS Act & Rules. For better appreciation, Section 2 (10) & Section 2 (21) of the Payment of Bonus Act reads as follows: "Section 2 (10)- "Cooperative Society" means a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies, Act 1912 (2 of 1912), or any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to co-operating societies. Section 2 (21) "salary or wage" means all remuneration (other . than remuneration in respect of over-time work) capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to an employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment & includes dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments, by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), but does not include (i) xxx xxx xxx (vi) any retrenchment compensation or any gratuity or other retirement benefit payable to the employee or any ex gratia payment made to him; No doctrinaire view about bonus is possible or desirable. This Much however is judicially settled that bonus is not deferred wages. it is a narrow & static view that considers bonus as• always an ex-gratia payment or a glorified tip or 'bakshish' or .g mere cash patronage payable at the pleasure of the employer. In the industrial jurisprudence of a modern economic society, it is a legal claim & a legal category of right." 7. Learned Counsel for the Opp. it is a narrow & static view that considers bonus as• always an ex-gratia payment or a glorified tip or 'bakshish' or .g mere cash patronage payable at the pleasure of the employer. In the industrial jurisprudence of a modern economic society, it is a legal claim & a legal category of right." 7. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party submits that in view, of the above settled position of law, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award, which need not be interfered with. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision in the case of The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1455 . 8. Section 56 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act 1962 makes provision regarding disposal of net profits of a Society. Sub-Section 2 (e) of Section 56 provides that the net profit after 'payment as stipulated under Sub-Section 1 may be utilized for payment of bonus to the employees of the Society to the extent & in the manner specified in the Bye laws. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the provision of Section 56 is quoted below: "Section 56 (1) - A Society shall, out of its net profit in any year (a) & (b) xxx xxx xxx (2) The balance of the net profits may be utilized for all or any of the purposes, namely, (a) xxx xxx xxx (e) payment of bonus to employees of the Society, to the extent & in the manner specified in the Bye-laws; (3) xxx xxx xxx" 9. Clause-52 of the Bye-law of Co-operative Societies speaks about distribution of profit, which is extracted hereunder: "Clause-52-Distribution of Net Profit- At the close of the year the net profit of the Society as declared by the Registrar in his audit report shall be distributed in accordance with the decision of the General Body made at the meeting thereof in the manner & order specified below: (a) Twenty five percent shall be transferred to the reserve fund. (b)' Such percentage as may be prescribed under the rules from time to time shall be contributed towards the Co-operative education fund. (c) An amount not exceeding 5 percent shall be placed to a special reserve fund for bad& doubtful debts. (b)' Such percentage as may be prescribed under the rules from time to time shall be contributed towards the Co-operative education fund. (c) An amount not exceeding 5 percent shall be placed to a special reserve fund for bad& doubtful debts. (d) Payment of dividend to members on their paid up share capital at the rate not exceeding (twelve) 12% of such share capital. (e) The balance if any be credited to any other fund constituted for the benefit of the Society or may be utilized in the payment of bonus not exceeding three months basic salary to the employees (or in refunding a portion of the ordinary interest paid by members during the year or for payment of bonus to the members of the Society on the amount 'of interest paid by them during the year on account of repayment of the loan at the rate not exceeding 8% (eight) of the net profit earned in that year) or for any other purpose as may be decided by the General Body subject to the provisions of the a.c.s. Act & the Rules." 10. It reveals from the copy of the resolution dated 16.12.1996 to 20.12.1996 (Annexures-2 & 3) filed by the Petitioner that there is overwriting in the said resolutions without any signature. It is apparent on the face of the record that the person, who was incharge of the Secretary of the Society, has done the same. The said person was also a beneficiary to the said resolutions. It also appears from the record that the in-charge management decided not to cause any further recovery of the amount already given & also decided, to refund the amount already sanctioned without any jurisdiction. Therefore, the employees cannot have any right to get that ex gratia amount by virtue of the aforesaid resolutions. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra), held that ex gratia is an incentive for an employee for his good work & only granted with the prior permission of the Registrar, The same cannot be granted on the illegal settlement between the Chairman & Employee's Association. Labour Court & industrial laws are not applicable where complete machinery has been provided under the provision of the Co-operative Societies Act. Additional Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter of employees with regard to payment of ex-gratia amount. 12. In. Labour Court & industrial laws are not applicable where complete machinery has been provided under the provision of the Co-operative Societies Act. Additional Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter of employees with regard to payment of ex-gratia amount. 12. In. the present case, the Registrar, Co-operative Society on 3.3.2004 informed the Chief Executive of the Petitioner-Society raising objection on payment of ex-gratia to the employees of the Society by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No.2934 of 1996 as well as the Resolution of the Committee of Management dated 16.12.1996 & instructed to recover the amount paid towards ex-gratia, as the same was not due to the employees because there is no provision in the Act & Rules in that respect. The Auditor General of Co-operative Societies also raised similar objection. 13. The decision cited by the Opp. Party in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay (supra) is not applicable to the present case as the same was regarding payment of bonus & the claim of customary bonus cannot be discarded merely because occasion for its announcement was not specified. In the present case, the claim of the employees is not only for bonus, but also for the ex gratia payment which is not customary or under any provision of Act & Rules. 14. In view of the above, the employees of the Petitioner Society are not entitled to get any ex-gratia amount In absence of any provision. Accordingly, the award dated 23.08.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.46 of 2006 is set aside. However, since the employees have already received the ex-gratia amount since more than last 10 years, this Court feels that the same shall not be recovered from them, but in future the same shall not be given to the employees, as claimed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition 'is allowed in part. No cost. S.K.MISHRA, J. I agree.