JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—When the workman’s service as a Turner was terminated on 24.4.1984 by the petitioners, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred in the following manner. : ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed jkeÁlkn iky] VuZj dh fnukad 24-04-1984 ls lsok lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS|kfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\** 2. The reference was answered by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent No. 2. i.e. the workman on 24.3.1993. This award which was challenged by means of a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5245 (ss) of 1993 was upheld as the writ petition was dismissed on 13.8.2008. Thereafter, when the workman moved an application under Section 33C(2) on 5.10.2010, the impugned order was passed, quantifying the amount which was to be paid to the workman for the period 1.1.1999 and 28.2.2002. The petitioner i.e. the employer thereafter approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition. 3. The petitioner i.e. the employer made following submissions : I. Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act (equivalent to Section 6-H-(2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act) the bonus as is payable to a workman is not to be computed. II. Further the petitioner submitted that the figures as had been given out by the workman were wrongly given out regarding his salary which had resulted in the wrong calculation of the Bonus. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that though bonus payable to a workman had to be calculated under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, if the same was not being paid, but if Bonus had to be calculated in consequence to the salary which was computed under Section 33C(2), then the calculation could very well be done by the Labour Court. As the learned counsel for the respondents read out Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the same is being reproduced here as under : 10. As the learned counsel for the respondents read out Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the same is being reproduced here as under : 10. Payment of minimum bonus : Subject to the other provisions of this Act, every employer shall be bound to pay to every employee in respect of the accounting year commencing on any day in the year 1979 and in respect of every subsequent accounting years, a minimum bonus which shall be 8.33 per cent of the salary or wage earned by the employee during the accounting year or one hundred rupees, whichever is higher, whether or not the employer has any allocable surplus in the accounting year: Provided that where an employee has not completed fifteen years of age at the beginning of the accounting year, the provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to such employee as if for the words “one hundred rupees”, the words “ sixty rupees” were substituted. 5. He further submitted that the figures which had been given out by the workman with regard to his salary were not such figures which he had concocted on his own but were such figures which could be corroborated by the record as was available before the Tribunal. 6. In the end learned counsel submitted that findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court need not be interfered with by this Court and relied upon Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 (12) SCC 754 , to bolster his submissions. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the definite view that the order was correctly passed. The Full Bench decision of M/s. Anand Oil Industries v. Labour Court, Hyderabad, and others, AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 182, answers the question which has been raised in this writ petition. Paragraph 80, which is relevant, is being reproduced here as under : “80. To sum up: The minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act and the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act are respectively rights vested in an employee under a statute. The right to receive the minimum bonus and the minimum wage constituted an existing statutory right. Paragraph 80, which is relevant, is being reproduced here as under : “80. To sum up: The minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act and the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act are respectively rights vested in an employee under a statute. The right to receive the minimum bonus and the minimum wage constituted an existing statutory right. For the enforcement of these rights, an employee can certainly file an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before a Labour Court, and the Labour Court is competent to compute the amount due to the employee in this behalf. A claim for the payment of minimum bonus cannot constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act. When such a claim is made by an employee, it is not necessary that it should be referred for adjudication by an industrial Tribunal. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in this behalf and determine the amount due.” 8. Further, another Full Bench decision in Kohinoor Tobacco Products Prt. Ltd., Adyal v. Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Nagpur and others, 1986 Lab IC 1055, also answers this very question in paragraph 16 of the judgement and, therefore, the same is being reproduced here as under : 16. For the reasons we have recorded our answers are as follows : Answer to question No. 1 : Every dispute relating to minimum bonus payable under Section 10 of the Bonus Act does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 22; and depending upon what the actual controversy between the parties is, proceedings for its recovery under Section 33-C(2) are maintainable. Answer to question No. 2 : Bonus Act is complete Code so far as the right to bonus is concerned. It is not a complete Code as far as the remedies are concerned. Application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act for claiming minimum bonus under Section 10 of the Bonus Act is maintainable under the given circumstances. 9. The question which has been answered in both the above Full Decisions is also involved in the present case. It is not a complete Code as far as the remedies are concerned. Application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act for claiming minimum bonus under Section 10 of the Bonus Act is maintainable under the given circumstances. 9. The question which has been answered in both the above Full Decisions is also involved in the present case. The Labour Court which is calculating the amount payable under an award will definitely calculate the bonus which is payable therein and a separate application would not have to be filed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. So far as the computation of the salary is concerned, this Court need not go into that question as the same was done after going into the figures which had been placed by the employer and the employee before the Court. 10. Under such circumstances, I find that there was no mistake in the award. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. As per the interim order dated 30.5.2013, the amount which was payable to the petitioner under the impugned award was ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit. Now as the writ petition has been dismissed, the awarded amount alongwith the accrued interest would be released in favour of the workman within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.