the available surplus. In order to do. that, it had to grant certain deductions from the gross profits. The appeJlante claimed deductions under a numb<'r of heads, but ·we are concerned only with two out of them, namely, (l} whether the appellants' claim for deduction of 51 % out of the grnss pro.fits on accounts of Income-Tax was justified, and (2) what should be the amount of remuneration for the six partners, in respect of which also deduction may be granted. The Tribunal decided that the amount of tax payable by the firm, as such, should be deducted and nQt as claimed by the appellant. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the amount deductable on account of Incorue-Tax would come to a little over 5% of the total amount of the gross profits. As regards the remunerations of the partners, the Tribunal fi:xed a lumpsum of twenty thousand rupees, on a. basic which is not easily discarnible from the award, and may be said to be more or Iese conjectural. After making provision for the prior charges ou the amount of the residuary surplus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that a bonus equivalent to l /4th of the total basic wages earned by the workmen during the year under reference, i.e., tho year ended October 31, 1958, would be justifi1,d. tr, then turned to the question of the alternative claim of the workmen to three months' basic wages, plus one month's dearness allowance, eithn as an implied term of conditions of service or as customary or traditional bonus. On a consideration of the decisions of this Court, and other decisions of High Courts and Tribunals, it came to the conclusion that though the respondents may not have succeeded in establishing their claim on the basis of implied terms .of contract, they had succeeded in proving their claim for tra.ditional or customary bonus at a unirorm rate of one month's basic wages plus dearness allowance. In the result, the Tribunal awarded to the workmen bonus equivalent to I/4th of the total ba.sio wages,
