SHELAT, - (1.)THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)ON demands for revision of wage-scales, deamess allo-wance, medical benefit, bonus for the year 1963-64, gratuity, etc. having beenmade by the workmen of the appellant-company in its Madras and the otherbranches in that region and disputes thereabout having arisen between thecompany and its said workmen, the government of Madras referred themby its notification, dated 6/04/1965, for adjudication to the IndustrialTribunal, Madras. The tribunal granted some and i rejected the rest of thedemands. Aggrieved by the award the company filed this appeal underspecial leave granted by this court.
Though the award dealt with a number of demands counsel for theappellant-company restricted its challenge against the award on three subjectsonly. Consequently, we are concerned in this appeal with those threesubjects only, namely, bonus for the year 1963-64, medical benefits andrevision by the tribunal of the company's existing gratuity scheme.

As regards the bonus, the company had already paid to the work-men bonus at the rate of 4 month's basic pay as against the demand for themaximum bonus calculated in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act,1965, and on consolidatsd as against the basic wages. The tribunalconceded that demand and granted bonus at 20% of the consolidated wages.In view, however, of this court's decision in Jalan Trading Co. v.Mill Maidoor Union Mr. Ramamurthi for the workmen conceded thatthe Act. cannot apply in respect of the year in question and that thebonus payable for that year will have to be calculated on the basis of theFull bench Formula as approved by this court. The award to that extent,therefore, has to be set aside and remanded to the tribunal for determiningthe bonus in accordance with the said Formula.

(3.)ON the question of medical facilities, the workmen's demand iscontained in Paras 27 to 31 of their statement of claim filed before theTribunal according to which the workmen wanted the company to reimburseall medical expenses incurred by them on production of bills therefor. InParas 27 and 8 of the statement, it was stated that the company had ascheme for medical benefit for its workmen at Calcutta made under theconsent award of 1962 and that there was no reason "why this amenityshould be refused to the workmen in this region". Para 30 of the statementstated that there was a discussion between the parties regarding this demandwhen the company agreed to appoint a medical officer for consultation bythe workmen and also to meet the cost of medicines up to Rs. 100.00 for aworkman per year. This offer, however, was rejected on three grounds : (1)that the condition as to the ceiling was discriminatory, (2) that the ceilingwas too low and (3) that there was no warrant for not extending the benefitto workmen of the branch offices outside Madras.
This demand is dealt with by the tribunal in Para 14 of the award.It is cloar therefrom that the Union's contention before the tribunal was thatthere was no reason why "this amenity of medical facility which the companyhas granted to its Calcutta workmen should be refused to the workmen of the917Madras region", The contention thus clearly was that the company havingmade a scheme for its Calcutta employees, it was discriminatory to refusesuch a scheme to its workmen in Madras region. It is equally clear that theoffer made by the company and referred to in the statement of claim by theworkmen was rejected as it contained a ceiling which was not in its Calcuttascheme, and it was, therefore, that its offer was considered discriminatory.In view of these contentions the tribunal agreed that a scheme for medicalbenefit for this region was called for. The Calcutta scheme was not pro-duced before the tribunal and therefore the tribunal proceeded to frameits own scheme. The tribunal rejected the demand for reimbursement ofall medical expenses in respect of which bills would be produced as it feltthat such a provision would lead to abuses including the obtaining of falsebills. Instead, the tribunal directed that the company should pay the costof such medicines as are prescribed by the company's doctor, if supportedbygenuine bills, and should also pay all cost of hospitalisation if and whenit was recommended by the company's doctor.