The respondent Corporation filed reply to the application and contested

the claim of the petitioner. The respondent set up the defence that the
petitioner was not employee of the respondent Corporation, but was
appointed in Carpet Weaving Centre only and is on the rolls of that
establishment only. According to the respondent Corporation, Carpet
Weaving Center was totally separate and distinct from the Corporation
and had no resemblance to the terms of employment of the employees
of the respondent Corporation. The Corporation set up the plea that
since the Carpet Weaving Center was a training center and an
educational institution and has no profit motive, bonus was not payable
under the Payment of Bonus Act. The Corporation also set up the
defence that the said Training Center has not completed five years of
service and on that ground under Section 16 of the Payment of Bonus
Act, the employee is not entitled to the payment of bonus. Can-law-
firms-in-india-rais

The first and foremost question which requires consideration is, whether
an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 is maintainable
seeking payment of minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act.
Admittedly, the petitioners are only seeking minimum payment of bonus
under the Payment of Bonus Act. It is also admitted that before filing of
the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, there was no
order for payment of bonus to the present petitioner under the Payment
of Bonus Act. Scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 is now well
settled and does not require any debate. The right to the benefit which is
sought to be computed under Section 33-C (2) must be an existing one
and that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must
arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the
industrial workmen and his employer.