Available-surplus bonus formula governs even in wasting industries, with deductions allowed only on proved prior charges.

The available-surplus bonus formula remains the governing basis in industrial adjudication, including for a wasting industry such as gold mining, but it may be adjusted to reflect special requirements proved on evidence. A lease covenant allowing a 15% reserve for revenue expenditure does not by itself create a prior charge or automatic rehabilitation claim; any rehabilitation deduction must be separately justified. Annual pension-fund contributions for a limited class of staff and a bonus amount already provided in an earlier year were treated as non-deductible on the facts. Questions of possible double depreciation and double addition of the initial pension contribution were remitted for fresh findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Full Bench formula for bonus calculation could be applied to a wasting industry like gold mining with suitable allowance for its special requirements; (ii) whether the lease covenant permitting a reserve for 15% of revenue expenditure could be treated as a prior charge or as an automatic claim for rehabilitation; (iii) whether the annual contribution to the pension fund and the bonus paid for the year 1950 were deductible in computing available surplus; and (iv) whether the award allowed statutory depreciation twice over and whether further finding was required on the alleged double addition of the initial pension-fund contribution.

Issue (i): whether the Full Bench formula for bonus calculation could be applied to a wasting industry like gold mining with suitable allowance for its special requirements

Analysis: The formula for determining bonus rests on the concept of available surplus after taking prior charges into account, and it had already received general approval as the normal basis for industrial adjudication. The special characteristics of gold mining, including the need for prospecting new ore, higher depreciation, and replacement expenditure, were recognised, but those considerations did not justify abandoning the formula or creating new categories of prior charge. The proper approach was to apply the established formula with adjustments based on the evidence of the industry's special needs.

Conclusion: The Full Bench formula remained applicable, subject to consideration of the special requirements of the mining industry, and the appellant was not entitled to a new general category of deduction.

Issue (ii): whether the lease covenant permitting a reserve for 15% of revenue expenditure could be treated as a prior charge or as an automatic claim for rehabilitation

Analysis: The covenant did not impose a binding obligation to create a reserve fund or to contribute a fixed 15% each year. It only permitted specified deductions while computing net surplus, and the tribunal could still examine whether any item claimed under depreciation or rehabilitation was justified on the evidence. Since the claim was founded solely on the covenant and not on proof of actual rehabilitation expenditure, the general 15% claim could not be allowed as a prior charge. At the same time, the employer was not to be precluded from making a separate, evidence-based claim for rehabilitation before the tribunal.

Conclusion: The claim for a fixed 15% deduction under the covenant was rejected, but the appellant was allowed to raise a separate claim for rehabilitation on remand.

Issue (iii): whether the annual contribution to the pension fund and the bonus paid for the year 1950 were deductible in computing available surplus

Analysis: The pension fund was created for a limited class of covenanted staff and its initial and annual contributions were found, on the facts, not to stand on the same footing as ordinary business charges. The tribunal was justified in holding that the annual contribution should not take precedence over the workmen's claim for bonus. As to bonus paid for 1950, the amount had already been provided and debited in the earlier accounting year, and there was no satisfactory basis for shifting it into the later year's computation of surplus.

Conclusion: The annual pension-fund contribution and the 1950 bonus amount were not deductible as claimed by the appellant.

Issue (iv): whether the award allowed statutory depreciation twice over and whether further finding was required on the alleged double addition of the initial pension-fund contribution

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed an arguable overlap in the treatment of depreciation and in the accounting for the pension-fund contribution, but the Court did not finally resolve these factual questions. Instead, it considered it fair to remit them to the tribunal for findings with additional evidence, since the final computation of available surplus might be materially affected by the answers.

Conclusion: These questions were remitted for fresh findings and were not finally decided.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the matter was sent back for reconsideration of specified factual issues, while the principal legal objections to the award were rejected and the bonus formula was upheld as the governing basis for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In bonus adjudication, the established available-surplus formula continues to govern even in a wasting industry, and deductions claimed as prior charges must rest on proof of a legally and factually justified item, not merely on a contractual reservation or asserted accounting treatment.

---