84,000 as further income tax under section 23A of the Indian Income tax Act, and iii the tribunal was wrong in allowing rehabilitation at rupees one lakh only and that a much larger sum was properly allowable as rehabilitation.
It, therefore, gave an award to the effect that the appellant would pay 10 per cent.
of their basic earnings for the year 1959 as bonus to the workmen companycerned.
As the dispute companyld number be settled, the matter was referred by the Government of Bombay to the tribunal.
The appellant then obtained special leave from this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
