Bonus scheme upheld while reinstatement was refused after delayed, vague industrial dispute claims and unused statutory remedy.

A revised bonus scheme was sustained after deletion of the Appellate Tribunal's additional condition, and the objections to the minimum attendance requirement and to bonus treatment for 1951 and 1952 failed because no sufficient basis was shown to disturb the concurrent tribunal findings. Reinstatement of discharged workmen was refused: although the discharge was technically contrary to section 33 during pendency of another dispute, the workmen had an available remedy under section 33-A, but they did not pursue it promptly; the reference was delayed, and the claim was left vague and uncertain. Relief was therefore denied, except to the limited extent accepted by the employer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bonus scheme as revised by the Industrial Tribunal, with deletion of the Appellate Tribunal's additional condition, should be upheld; (ii) whether reinstatement of the discharged workmen could be ordered on the facts and in the circumstances of the reference.

Issue (i): The bonus dispute concerned the quantum payable under an existing profit-sharing scheme, the revisions proposed by both sides, and the further condition added by the Appellate Tribunal that the Full Bench formula would apply where it yielded a higher figure. The parties before the Court accepted the Industrial Tribunal's revised scheme and agreed that the Appellate Tribunal's added condition should be removed. The remaining objections to the minimum attendance requirement and to payment of bonus for 1951 and 1952 under the unrevised scheme were rejected as no sufficient reason was shown to interfere with the concurrent findings of the tribunals.

Conclusion: The revised bonus scheme was sustained with the Appellate Tribunal's additional condition deleted, while the challenge to the attendance requirement and to the treatment of the years 1951 and 1952 failed.

Issue (ii): The dispute over reinstatement arose after an illegal and unjustified strike, followed by discharge of the workmen, a later reopening of the works, and a very delayed reference made without a proper list of the persons said to be entitled to reinstatement. Although the discharge was technically contrary to section 33 while another industrial dispute was pending, the remedy under section 33-A was available to the workmen and was not pursued. The Court treated the long delay, the vagueness of the reference, and the workmen's failure to seek timely redress as sufficient grounds to refuse the relief of reinstatement.

Conclusion: Reinstatement was refused, and the order directing reinstatement of the workmen was set aside except to the limited extent accepted by the employer.

Final Conclusion: The decision substantially upheld the bonus revision while denying the broad reinstatement claim, granting relief only to the limited extent of the employer's willingness to reengage four workmen.

Ratio Decidendi: A technically unlawful discharge during pendency of an industrial dispute does not, by itself, compel reinstatement where the workmen do not promptly invoke the statutory remedy, the reference is made after an unreasonable delay, and the claim is presented in an uncertain and vague form.

---