Judgment 1. The writ petitioner has come forward with the aforesaid prayer calling for the records relating to the 1st respondent dated 27.05.2013 in C.P.No.1035/2010 and quash the order. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1923. The second respondent was appointed as an Assistant Salesmen on20.03.1984 and he was working in the Anna Salai Co-operative Clearance Sales Centre and he was suspended on 11.06.1990 and was subsequently dismissed from the service by the petitioner on 22.03.1993 on the ground of stock deficit. The second respondent preferred an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner of Labour and it was taken up as TSE 26/2003 and the Dy. Commissioner of Labour allowed the appeal on 01.06.1996 as the second respondent was a person employed in terms of the Shops & Establishments Act 1942. After the orders of the authority, the second respondent was reinstated into service. 3. The second respondent filed a claim petition before the first respondent on the ground that he has succeeded before the authority under the Shops & Establishments Act and that he is entitled to difference in salary for the period from 11.06.1990 to 31.12.2001 for Rs.1,93,180/-. That apart, he submitted that he is entitled to bonus @ 8.6% amounting to Rs.38,000/- and sales commission at Rs.5000/- per year between June 1997 and December 2002, amounting to Rs.27,500/- and Rs.4,000/- towards refund of recovery for shortage effected against the orders of Arbitration and II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The first respondent allowed the claim petition of the second respondent but he was not paid the amount determined by the first respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent is a counter salesman and he is not entitled to the commission of sales and he was working in the counter. It is has been pointed out that the second respondent is not entitled to bonus, sales commission and recovery of shortage, as claimed in the claim petition. The amount claimed by the second respondent was Rs.1,93,180/- and not any other amount. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,47,662/-has already been paid and that, except the balance amount, the second respondent is not entitled to any amount under any other head. The amount claimed by the second respondent was Rs.1,93,180/- and not any other amount. He further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,47,662/-has already been paid and that, except the balance amount, the second respondent is not entitled to any amount under any other head. The second respondent, as the petitioner in the claim petition, had stated that he is entitled to the amounts demanded by him as other employees are being paid 8.6% bonus on the basic wage and that he is also entitled to sales commission apart from the refund of recovery of shortage effected against the orders of Arbitration and II M.M. Court, Chennai. 5. Heard both parties. 6. With regard to the difference in salary, as the petitioner admits that an amount of Rs.1,47,662/- has already been paid and that the balance amount has to be paid and this fact has also been admitted by the second respondent, there is no need to adjudicate on this issue. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the second respondent are governed by the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. There are no details prescribed by the second respondent before the first respondent as to how he arrived at the bonus of 8.6% on the basic salary. He has not even given an example of an employee who was paid 8.6% bonus. The petitioner submitted that the second respondent is not entitled to bonus in any event not more than 8.33% as other employees are paid only one month's wages at 8.33%, in terms of Payment of Bonus Act. Neither the petitioner nor the second respondent is able to say what was the last salary drawn by the second respondent for calculating bonus at the relevant point of time. In any case, the first respondent, has, without having any material on record, decided that the second respondent is entitled to bonus. In case if the second respondent is governed by the Payment of Bonus Act and is coming within the ceiling prescribed under the Act, the petitioner has to pay the bonus @ 8.33% to the second respondent. If the second respondent does not come under the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act for the relevant point of time, there is no need for the petitioner to pay bonus. 8. If the second respondent does not come under the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act for the relevant point of time, there is no need for the petitioner to pay bonus. 8. With regard to the sales commission, Industrial Disputes Act defines wages under Section 4 (rr), which is extracted below - 4*[(rr) "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes - (i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to; (ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food-grains or other articles; (iii) any travelling concession; 9. Since the second respondent is a counter salesman and that there is no evidence before the court that he has fulfilled the condition to claim that he is entitled to get commission payable on promotion of sales or business or both, the first respondent ought not have granted commission on sales. The first respondent cannot grant relief for the sake of wrong scale. The second respondent would have briefed his case before the first respondent and since he has not established on this head, he is not entitled to the commission as claimed by him. Hence, the finding of the labour court to this extent is set aside. 10. As there is a dispute with regard to the other head, the petitioner contends that the seconds respondent is not entitled to the relief. Even though it has been contended by the second respondent that there is an arbitration proceedings and in that it has been decided that he is entitled to the amount of Rs.4,000/-in total that was recovered from him, it cannot be accepted as there is no proof that there was an arbitration award and no document have been filed before the first respondent in support of the same. The petitioner has disputed this amount and contends that as there is a dispute, the second respondent will have to prove his claim before the first respondent, as per the procedures contemplated under Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. The petitioner has disputed this amount and contends that as there is a dispute, the second respondent will have to prove his claim before the first respondent, as per the procedures contemplated under Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. In view of the above circumstances, I find much force in the contention of the petitioner. In view of the foregoing findings, the award of the first respondent is modified holding that the petitioner has to pay the balance amount of Rs.45,518/-and bonus @ 8.33% for the accounting years 1990 to 1997, if the second respondent comes within the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The claim with regard to the sales commission and recovery of shortage deficit are rejected. 12. The petitioner is directed to pay the balance amounts on the first head, i.e. difference in salary for the period from 11.06.1990 to 31.12.2001, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the second respondent is found eligible for bonus, the same is directed to be paid to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy the order. 13. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.