Profit-purpose test under bonus law turns on dominant object and independent institutional character of the undertaking.

For exclusion under the Payment of Bonus Act, a transport undertaking must itself qualify as an institution, with independent organisational, financial and accounting features, and not merely derive character from its connection with a larger religious establishment. The decisive test is whether it was established not for purposes of profit, assessed by its dominant purpose rather than incidental profits or the use of earnings for charitable ends. A facility serving pilgrims may still fall outside the exclusion if profit-making is its real object. The Tribunal's findings were set aside and the exclusion question was remitted for fresh decision on the evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transport department was an institution within the meaning of Section 32(5)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act; (ii) whether the transport department was established not for purposes of profit so as to fall within the exclusion.

Issue (i): Whether the transport department was an institution within the meaning of Section 32(5)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act.

Analysis: The statutory exclusion could apply only if the transport undertaking was shown to be an institution in its own right. Its connection with the larger religious establishment did not by itself settle the question. The relevant enquiry was whether, having regard to its organisation, finance, accounts and disposal of profits, the transport department had an independent institutional character.

Conclusion: The issue required fresh determination by the Tribunal and was not finally resolved against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the transport department was established not for purposes of profit so as to fall within the exclusion.

Analysis: The character of the undertaking depended on its dominant purpose, not merely on incidental profits or on the use of earnings for other charitable ends. A facility run for pilgrims could still be an institution established for profit if profit-making was its real object. The Tribunal had not properly addressed this aspect.

Conclusion: The matter had to be reconsidered on merits on the correct test of dominant purpose.

Final Conclusion: The findings of the Tribunal were set aside and the question of exclusion under the bonus law was remitted for fresh decision on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: For the exclusion to apply, the undertaking must be shown to be an institution established not for purposes of profit, and that character must be determined by its dominant purpose on a proper examination of its organisational and financial features.

---