Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. We see no inconsistency between the settlement and Section 34 of the Act. No question of the settlement being invalid by reason of such inconsistency arises. We must also observe that neither of the parties has raised such contention before the Tribunal. Both the parties stood by the settlement. The difference was only in the way in which they chose to understand it.

26. Learned counsel for the management submitted that at this distance of time, huge financial liability should not be imposed upon the company as according to him, the liability would exceed Rs. Seventy five lakhs. Counsel also said that if bonus for that year were to be calculated in accordance with the schedule to the Payment of Bonus Act, the allocable surplus would permit the payment of bonus at a rate, which would be less than 20%. We must observe that the management having chosen not to lead any evidence before the Tribunal, and having failed to set out any financial date, with regard to the additional burden or about the manner in which it made its calculation when it signed the settlement, it cannot be now heard to say that the settlement as now interpreted would impose an unbearable burden. Counsel for the workmen stated at the Bar that the appellant's turnover was in excess of Rs. 1,000 crores and that the additional burden was well within the financial capacity of the appellant. Be that as it may, parties being bound by the terms of the settlement and having intended to pay 20% bonus to those eligible under the Payment of Bonus Act, as is enforceable in the accounting year commencing in the year 1984 the workmen are entitled to the amounts claimed by them.