https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187364 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. en-us Fri, 08 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:44:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187364 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187364