# \J. ohd, $trqjuddin v. R. C. Alishra

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 557
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 459 and 460 of 1960
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadk.Ar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wan<Jhoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/j-ohd-trqjuddin-v-r-c-alishra-2561
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Puja bonus-Basia of tht
claim-Profit bonus-Housing aceommodalion-House allowance.
The appellant, a research institution established for
the purpose of improving the quality of tea was managed by
the India Tea Assciation. The employees 'made claim,s, inler
1961
\J. ohd, $trqjuddin
v.
R. C. Alishra
Hidayatullah J.
1961
No,,mlm Ill.
1961
1 ht ma11111tm111t of
Tock/oi ExpnimtnJal
Statio.'I rt/W1Jtn1td
b;- tht Indian Tta
AJSociation
v.
'fht 1Votkmcn
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
alia, for ( 1) free housing accommodation or adequate allowance in lieu thereof, and (2) grant of bonus. The tribunal, to
which the matter was referred by the Government considered
the financial position of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the demand for housing accommodation was not
justified and that the ends of justice would be met if a flat
rate of enhancement of Rs. 20/· was awarded. As regards the
demand for bonus the tribunal felt that it would be inexpedient to apply the formula which governed the decision of indus·
trial claims for the payment of bonus, but made an award
directing the appellant to pay puja bonus to its employees on
the ground that what was described as puja bonus was being
given to workmen who were similarly situated as also to the
clarical staff working at the Indian Tea Association at Calcutta and that refusing the workmen's claim for bonus against
the appellant would amount to discrimination.
Held, that a demand for the provision of housing accommodation can he reasonably entertained where it appeared
that the financial position of the employer can bear the burden
involved, that under the present economic conditions prevailing in the industry the responsibility for providing housing
accommodation cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of
the employer, and that in due course the problem would have
to be tackled by the industry in cooperation with the State,
which would have to bear a part of that responsibility.
The Patna Electrk Supply Co., Ud. Patna v. 'l'he Patna
]<;kctric Supply Workers' Ut1ion, [1959] Supp. 2. S.C.R. 761,
relied on.
Held, further, that before a claim for the grant of puja
bonus could be sustained it must be shown ( 1) that it was
consistently paid by the employer to his employees from year
to year at the same rate, and (2) that it had been paid even
in years of l= and that it had no rdation to the profit made
by the employer during the relevant year.
A claim for puja bonus could also be made on the ground
that the payment of such bonus was an implied term in the
contract of employment.
Th£ Graham Trading Co. (Indian) Ud. v. Its Workmen,
[1960] l S.C.R. 107 and Mis. Ispahani Lui., Calcaua v, Iapahani Employed Union, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 24, followed.
Industrial profit bonus, which u governed by the application of the well known formula, cannot be awarded unless
a specific year for which the claim is made u indicated and it
is alleged that there is available surplus in the hands of the
employer for that year.
(1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
559

## Text

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
557
ate custody; but we must direct that due facilities
for inspection should be afforded to the Customs
authoritfos in the shape of a separate room and
suitable furniture and time extended beyond the
ordinar.v Court hours. Inspection should be carri·
ed on in the presence of a Court official, and
adequate privacy for questioning witnesses etc.,
should be afforded to the Customs authorities,
whenever they find it necessary. In our opinion,
if these facilities are granted-. and we direct that
they be granted-a period of four months from
the date this order reaches the Magistrate should
prove enough. 'Ve, therefore, set aside the order
for the handing over of the doouments to the
Customs authorities, and make a direction for the
disposal of the records, as stated above. We may
add that this order does not apply to the 63 documents, which the Customs authorities have already
agreed to return to the party.
Appeal allowed.
THE MANAGEMENT OF TOCK.LAI EXPERIMENTAL STATION REPRESENTED
BY THE INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION
v.
THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER
(And connected appeal)
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADK.AR, A. K. SARKAR and
K. N. WAN<JHOO, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Puja bonus-Basia of tht
claim-Profit bonus-Housing aceommodalion-House allowance.
The appellant, a research institution established for
the purpose of improving the quality of tea was managed by
the India Tea Assciation. The employees 'made claim,s, inler
1961
\J. ohd, $trqjuddin
v.
R. C. Alishra
Hidayatullah J.
1961
No,,mlm Ill.
1961
1 ht ma11111tm111t of
Tock/oi ExpnimtnJal
Statio.'I rt/W1Jtn1td
b;- tht Indian Tta
AJSociation
v.
'fht 1Votkmcn
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
alia, for ( 1) free housing accommodation or adequate allowance in lieu thereof, and (2) grant of bonus. The tribunal, to
which the matter was referred by the Government considered
the financial position of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the demand for housing accommodation was not
justified and that the ends of justice would be met if a flat
rate of enhancement of Rs. 20/· was awarded. As regards the
demand for bonus the tribunal felt that it would be inexpedient to apply the formula which governed the decision of indus·
trial claims for the payment of bonus, but made an award
directing the appellant to pay puja bonus to its employees on
the ground that what was described as puja bonus was being
given to workmen who were similarly situated as also to the
clarical staff working at the Indian Tea Association at Calcutta and that refusing the workmen's claim for bonus against
the appellant would amount to discrimination.
Held, that a demand for the provision of housing accommodation can he reasonably entertained where it appeared
that the financial position of the employer can bear the burden
involved, that under the present economic conditions prevailing in the industry the responsibility for providing housing
accommodation cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of
the employer, and that in due course the problem would have
to be tackled by the industry in cooperation with the State,
which would have to bear a part of that responsibility.
The Patna Electrk Supply Co., Ud. Patna v. 'l'he Patna
]<;kctric Supply Workers' Ut1ion, [1959] Supp. 2. S.C.R. 761,
relied on.
Held, further, that before a claim for the grant of puja
bonus could be sustained it must be shown ( 1) that it was
consistently paid by the employer to his employees from year
to year at the same rate, and (2) that it had been paid even
in years of l= and that it had no rdation to the profit made
by the employer during the relevant year.
A claim for puja bonus could also be made on the ground
that the payment of such bonus was an implied term in the
contract of employment.
Th£ Graham Trading Co. (Indian) Ud. v. Its Workmen,
[1960] l S.C.R. 107 and Mis. Ispahani Lui., Calcaua v, Iapahani Employed Union, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 24, followed.
Industrial profit bonus, which u governed by the application of the well known formula, cannot be awarded unless
a specific year for which the claim is made u indicated and it
is alleged that there is available surplus in the hands of the
employer for that year.
(1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
559
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 459 and 460 of 1960
Appeals by special leave from the award dated
March l 0, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam,
in Reference No. 16 of 19,58.
M. C. Sewfoad, Attorney General for lndi<l, B.
Sen, S. N. 1lfukherji and B. N. Ghosh, for the man·
agement appellant (in C. A. No. 459 of 60) and the
respondent (in L'. A. No. 460 of 1960).
S. T. Desai, A. K. Dutt and Janardan Sharma, for
the workmen respondents (in C. A. No. 459 of60)
and the appellants (in C. A. No. 460 of 1960).
1961. November 24. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
G.AJENDRAG.ADKAR, J.-Civil Appeals Nos. 459
and 460 of 1960 are cross appeals and they arise out
of an award pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal,
Assam, in an industrial dispute referred by the
Assam Government for its adjudication. This indu:it1 ial dispute was raised against the management
of the Tocklai Experimental Sbtion (hereafter called
the Station) by its workmen. Six out of the demands made by the workmen formed the subjectmatter of reference. In the present appeals we are
concerned with three of them. Demand No. 1 (a}
was that the employees' junior staff of the Station
should be given pension in lieu of the existing practice of paying gratuity. This demand has been re·
jected b. the tribunal.
The other demand madtl
by the employees was No. 3(b) and it had reference
to the claim for free housing accommodation or
adequate allowance in lieu thereof. This demand
has been partially allowed by the tribunal and it
has directed that house allowance in each case shall
be raised at the flat rate of Rs. 20/· instead of Rs.
10/-. The decision of the tribunal in respect of
these two demands did not satisfy the workmen
and so by special leave of this Court they have filed
Civil Appeal No. 460 of .1960. The demand of the
1961
Tlte management of
TockLai Experimtntal
Station represenlld
hy the Indian T IG
Association
v.
'l'he Workmtn
Gajentlragadkar J.
1981
Tiu manogttnml of
TocAla1 Exp,,i:.·1tnf(I/
Sl4ti01t rt/fftstnttd
bJ Iii< InJUm Tta
Association
v.
Tht WDrAmen
(/ojtnd1ogaJkar J.
560 8UPRE~IE CULJ!t'l' REPOHT~ [l~Zj SUPP.
junior staff for bonus which was resiRtcd hy the
Station has been pa.rtially allowed by the tribunal.
rt has ordered that the Station shall give puja bonus at the same rate os the employees working for
the Indian Tea Association at Calcutta arc getting.
This part of the award is challenged by t.hc Station
in its appeal by special leave by Civil Appeal No.
459 of I !J60.
That is how the two cross-appeals
arise.
We will deal first with the Statio11's Appeal
in n·spect of bonus. The learned Attorney-General
contends that in making the demand for bonus the
workmen have entirely misecmceived the true position of the industrial law on the point, and he
argues that. the Assam Government was not justified in making the reference in the form it has been
made and the tribunal was not justified in making
the award in the manner it has done.
The workmen made their dema11d for bonus in these words:
"The Union requests the introduction of bonus for
the Tocklai Staff on t.he following grounds". Then
follow six grounds. It was urged that the Station
is an arm of the tea industry and is maintained by
the members of the I.T.A. who give bonus to their
employees, that the Station exists and works for
the advancement of the tea industry and increasing
its profits a.nd thus is an industry, that the I.T.A.
employees at Calcutt.a office are given bonus, that
the Pmployees of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce
receive bonus, that the employees of Shamshemagar
and Tulsipara branches of this very Station used to
be given bonus so long as these branches wero
functioning and that the personnel of the scientific
research laboratories attached to many industrial
0011cerns receive bonus, and so the workmen in the
present caso were entitled to make a claim in that
behalf. In appreciating this claim it is nece88ary to
state that the Station is a research institution established by the Indian Tea Association to make research for the purpose of improving the quality of
f '
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
561
tea and its production and the said Station is mana~e.I by the parent Association and is maintA.ined
by means of voluntary s11bscriptiom from members
of the said Association.
Broadly stated the ground
on which the workmen claimed bonus was that the
employees of the Association were receiving bonus
ancl. that the personnel of scientific reseMch laboratories similarly situated in other industrial concerns
were also given bonus.
When the Assam Government made the present reference it included within the scope of the reference this claim of bonus along with the other
claims made by the workmen. The issue referred
for adjudication on this point was thus framed:
"2(a). Whether the demand of the employees (Junior Staff) for bonus is justified ? If
so, at what rate should the same be paid ?"
The tribunal considered this demand and partially allowed it by directing that the workmen
should be paid puja bonus at the same rate as
the employees working, in the I.T.A. at Calcutta are
getting. In dealing with this question the tribunal
has held that the Station is an industry within the
meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and so it
could not resist the demand made by its workmen
on the ground that it is 'an academic body devoted
to research and as such outside the purview of' the
Act.
This position is not disputed before us by the
Station becau~e it is concluded by a decision of this
Court in The Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research
Association v. The State of Bombay. ('). The
tribunal has, however, found in favour of the Station that it would be inexpedient, if not impossiblt>,
to apply the formula which governs the decision of
industrial claim~ for the payment of bonus.
"There
are obvious difficulties'', says the tribunal, "in applying the formula laid tlown by their Lords"ips of
the Supreme Court to an experimental sta'ion 1un
(I) [1961] 2 S. C.R. 480.
1961
Tlv mrmaztment of
Tocfc/ai Experim1ntf;l
S ation rf/Jr,s1ntf.d
hy the [,,dian Tea
Association
v.
Tl.e W orkm1n
Gajendragadkar J_
1~61
1' 4t mdlYJttTJUnt qf
Tccl.:lul £x;111"1lflW
BttuUm rtffftunktl
;, tit• l11dion T to
· Associali1J11
••
Tlw Workmlll
562 SGPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
by the Association"; but it added that "it could not
be overlooked that payment of bonus to members
of the experimental staff is being made by some
companies". Then the tribunal referred to 8ome
instances where bonus is paid to workm<'n who, in
the opinion of the tribunal, wern similarly situated,
and i~ came to the conclu;.ion that refusing the
workmen's claim
fur bonll'l against the Station
would amount to discrimination. The tribunal then
took into account the
fact
that
what
is
described as
puja bonus is
paid to members
of
the staff
of the
Bengal
Chamber
of
Commerce because it was admitted before it that
the junior staff of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce
which presumably was also serving the I.T.A. at
Calcutta was receiving a
fixed annual gratuity
characterised as puja bonus.
The tribunal conceded that the claim for this kind of bonus "may
not directly satisfy the requirements of law", but
it added that "the fact that what was described as
puja bonus was given at the sub-stations and is
also given to the clerical staff working at the I.T.A.
at Calcutta, supports the demand to this extent
at least that the same treatment may be meted out
to them." It is on this reasoning that the tribunal
ultimately made the award in favour of the workmen directing the Station to pay puja bonus to its
employees.
It would be noticed that the demand original·
ly made by the workmen appears to be in the
nature of a demand for bonus which is usually
described as industrial profit bonus the payment
of which is governed by the application of the
well known formula..
Such a. demand is invariably
made, and ha.a to be made, by reference to a pa.rti·
c:ul~r year because the formula which determines
claims for profit bonus postulates the examination
of the a. va.ila.ble surplus in tho hands of the employ·
er from which bonus may be directed to be pa.id to
the employees. A claim for profit bonus cannot
r
D
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
563
be validly ma-:le unless a specific year for which
the claim is madeis indicated and it is alleged that
there is
available surplus in the hands of the
employer during that year. It is unfortunate that
this elementary aspect was overlooked by the workmen when they made the claim and has not bern
noticed even by the Assam Government when it
made the reference in respect of this . claim.
This
serious infirmity in the claim is present even in the
award made by the tribunal because the award
does not say for what year the bonus should be
paid, and like the claim maf!e by the workmen in
very general terms for the introduction of bonus
the award also seems to make a direction in similar
terms for the payment of bonus. In our opinion,
this is a patent infirmity in the award. Profit
bonus, it is hardly necessary to emphasise, can be
awarded
only
by
reference
to a relevant
year
and
a
claim
for
such
bonus has,
therefore, to be made from year to year and has to
be settled either amicably between the parties or,
if a reference is made, it has to be determined by
industrial adjudication. A general claim for the
introduction of profit bonus cannot be made or
entertained in the form in which it has been done
in the present proceedings.
Besides, the other serious infirmity in the
award is that when a claim for profit bonus was
made the tribunal has proceeded to grant puja
bonus and that too solely on the ground that the
refusal to grant the said claim would amount to
discrimination. In our opinion, the approach
adopted by the tribun11.l in dealing with this alternative claim for puja bonus which was not made in
the demand and which had not been expressly
referred to the tribunal is entirely erroneous. The
claim for puja bonus proceeds on entirely different
considerations. Customary puja bonus undoubtedly prevails in many indmtrics in Bengal but there
are certain tests which have to be applied in
1961
T ht lllanqement vf
Tocklai Experimental
Station repres1nted
by tire J,,dian Tea
Association
v.
The Workmen
Gajtndragat/kar J.
IIMl
TJ,, manatt111t11t of
T ""~l"i fupnUzvns"~
Stalion rlf#tstnld
by tltt Indian Tta
AssoriatWti
v.
·r111
~r'orkm~n
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
determining the validity of the claim, The amount by
way of puja bonus, it must be shown, has been
consistently paid by the employer to hie employees
from year to year at the same rate, that it has been
paid even in yearB of loss and that it has no relation
to the profit made by the employer during the
relevant ~·ear. The course of conduct spreading
over a reasor•ably long period between the employer
and the employees in the matter of payment of
puja bonus is of considerable importance in dealing
with the claim of customary puja bonus [Vide : The
Graham Trading Co. (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1)].
A claim for puja bonus can also be ma.de in a proper
case of the ground that the payment of such bonus
is an implied term in the contract of employment
[Vide: Mes<rs. lspahani Ltd., Calcutta v. lspahani
Employees' Union(')]. Such a claim again would necessarily involl·e the consideration of several relevant
facts none of which has been alleged or proved in
the present proceedings. Therefore, the decision of
the tribunal awarding puja bonus to the workm6n
cannot be sustained. Indeed. in awarding puja.
bonus to the workmen the tribunal has failed to
consider that it was making out an
entirely
new and inconsistent ease for the workmen and
granting tho s:i.id daim without any proof of the
relevant facts which would support such a. claim.
It is rather surprising that even when the tribunal
by its a.ward wanted to grant the demand for puja
bonus it did not think it necessary to r.larify a.t
what rate the said bonus was to be paid.
The
award is absolutely vagne in that behalf and that
is another infirmity in the award.
Sinco that is
the only point in Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1960
preferred by the Station we must hold that the
appeal succeeds and must set aside the
award
ma.de by the tribunal under issue No. I (a).
Before we pa.rt with this appeal, however,
wo ought to add that after special leave was granted
(I) [196?] l S. C.R. 107.
(2) [1960} l S. C.R. 24.
1
•
---
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
565
to the Station to prefer its appeal it applied for
1eu
stay of the award directing the payment of puja
The m:.;;;;;,en• of
bonus and stay was granted by this Court on condi· Tocklai Experimental
·
·
• •
.
Station rtP"esented
t10n that the amount of puJa bonus should be paid
1,, the Indian Tea
by the Station to its employees on their furnishing
Association
security to the sat.isfaotion of the management.
The i:;.,kmm
Accordingly the Station has paid to its workmen
"
W
Gajendragadkar J.
puja bonus 1or three years.
e suggested to the
learned Attorney- General that in case his appeal
wer" to succeed the Station may consider whether
it would partially forego its claim to recover the
amount already paid by it to its workmen, and the
learned Attorney-General,
after consulting
his
client, has stated before us that the Station would
forego one-third of the total amount paid by it to
its employees under the orders of this Court.
This
one-third amount, we were told, is in the neighbourhood of Rs.65,000/-
The learned Attorney-General also stated that the balance of two-third
amount which it would recover from its employees
can be paid by each one of them either by easy
instalments or at the time when he would receive
his gratuity or provident fund ; the employee may
exercise his option in that behalf. It appears that
some of the employees who received the said
amount have left the service of the Station and
at that time have refunded the amount received
by them. The Station would be prepared to give
back to such employees one-third of the said
amount. In our opinion, the attitude adopted by
the Station in this matter is very fair and it would
relieve the workmen from their liability to return
. one-third of the total amout received by them
in pursuance of tho orders of this Court.
That takes us to Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1960
preferred by the workmen. Mr. S. T. Desai, who
argued this appeal, could not seriously press the
workmen's case against the refusal of the tribunal
to ·allow their demand for pension in lieu of the existing practice of paying gratuity. On a consideration
lHl
Tiit mon•ttmtnt of
T .dU.i Ex1trinuntal
Statiein rtf111Jintet/
~J tlw Indian Tta
Associati011
v.
TM W01.1mtn
Gaj1t1JragU/u1 J,
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
of the relevant facts the tribunal came to the
conclusion that this demand was not justified, and,
in our opinion the concluRion of the tribunal is well·
founded. Then, as regards tho other demand which
is the subjeci-ma.ttcr of the appeal tho t1,:ibunal has
increased the house allowance at a flat rate of
Rs.20/· instead of Rs.10/· and this incrPased rate has
been pa.id by the Station as from the date when the
a.wa1d became enforceable. Mr. Desai contends that
the tribunal should have ma.de an a.ward granting the
demand for accommodation or in the alternative
should have a.warded larger a.mount by way of house
allowa.nco. We are not impressed by this argument.
A demand for the provision of housing accommodation can be reasonably cntertained where it appears
that the financial position of the cmploye r can bear
the burden involved in the said dcma.n d. Under
the present oconomic conditions prevailing in tho
in1lustry the n·sponsibility for providing housing
accommodation cannot reasonably b0 placed solely
on the shoulders of the cm ployer. In due course the
problem may have to be tacklP1l by the industry in
co·operation with the Stat('. The ::itat{' will h11.vB to
b<'ar a part of that rcsponHibility [Vide: The
Pat1w Electric Supply Co. Ltd., l'atna v. 'l'lte Patna
EIP-c~ric Supply Worl:ers' Union('))]. The tribunal has
considered tho linanci11.l poRition of the Station, tlw
urgency of tho dama.nd ma.de by the workmen, and
Jrn.s come to the conclusion that the 1lcmand for
housing accommodation was n1>t justified and that
n.o ends of social justices would be met in the pr~sent
case if a flat rate of enhancement of Rs. 20/- is awarded. It is true that the Station gives housing accom- _
modation for members of tho senior staff but as the
-
tribunal has pointed out there arc special reasons
how more favourable terms have to be offered to
senior research staff in order to get tho services of
properly trained and properly equipped personnel.
In our opinion, the tribunal was right in refusing
(ll [1959] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 761,
•
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS
567
to draw an analogy between the requirements or
the senior research staff and the junior staff with
wl:wse chims the tribunal was dealing. TherPfore,
we are not satisfied that there is any substance in
the grievance made by the workmen against the
a.ward passed by the tribunal in respect of house
allowance. The result is Civil Appeal No. 460 of
1960 fails and is dismissed.
There would be no order as to costs in both
the appeals.
Appeal No. 459 allowed.
Appeal No. 460 dismissed.
K. M. NANAVATI
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(S. K. DAS, K. SmrnA RAO and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
. Jury 'l'rial-Oharge-Misdirection-Reference by Judge,
if and when competent-Plea of General Exception-Burden
of proof-"Grave anrl sudden provocation"-Test-Power of
High Oonrt in reference-Gode of Criminal Procednre(Act, 5
of 1898), ss. 307, 410, 417, 418(1), 423(2), 297, 155 (1), 162Imlian Penal Gode, 18n0 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 302, 300, Exception 1·-lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (l•o/ 1872), s. 105.
Appellant Nanavati, a Naval Officer, was put up on
trial under ss. 302 and 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code
for the alleged murder of his wife's paramour. The prosecution case in substance was that on the day of occurrence his
wife Sylvia confrssed to him of her illicit intimacy with Ahuja
and the accused went to his ship, took from its stores a revolver and cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went
to Abuja's flat, entered his bed room and shot him dead.
The defence, inter alia, was that as hi• wife did not tell .him
if Ahuja would marry her and take charge of their children,
he decided to go and settle the matter with him. He drove
his wife and children to a cinema where he dropped thrm
promising to pick them up when the show ended at 6 P. M.,
drove to the ship and took the revolver and the cartridges on
11 fat.e pretext intending to shoot himself. Thc;n he drove
1~61
Thi man•z1rn1111 •f
Tockl•i ExJletirnenJai
Station rtf111sent1d
b.J the Indian Tea
Assoeitition
v.
The Workmen
6aj1ntragadkor J.
1~1
November 24.