Case: Bengal Kagazkal Mazdoor Union and Others Vs. Titaghur Paper Mills Company, Limited, No. I, and Others

Wanchoo, J.1. This judgment is in continuation of our judgment dated 11 April 1963 [reported in 1963 - II L.L.J. 358]. The two appeals by two unions of workmen of the respondents mills relate to bonus for four years. When the appeals were heard on the previous occasion, four points were raised on behalf of the appellants, namely -(1) calculation of gross profit for the year 1956-57;(2) calculation of incometax for all four years,(3) calculation for rehabilitation for all four years, and(4) calculation of working capital for all four years.2. In our previous judgment we substantially accepted the contentions of the appellants on these four points and remanded the matter to the tribunal for taking further evidence and thereafter to recaloulate the available surplus and submit its findings to us. The tribunal has now done that and both parties have filed objections in accordance with our direction in the earlier judgment to these findings and the appeals have now come up for final disposal.3. Of the four points then in dispute, the matter of working capital is no longer in dispute, as the parties are agreed about the finding of the tribunal in that connexion. It therefore remains to deal With the first three points only as indicated above and we shall take them one by one.4. Regarding (1). - The dispute in this connexion was with respect to revaluation of some of the current assets in the year 1956-57 which resulted in an increased figure of Rs. 38.8 lakhs on the debit side of the profit and loss account of that year. The contention of the appellant in that connexion was that this method of revaluation resulted in showing inflated figures in terms of money for the cost of raw materials, etc., consumed with the result that actual profit was reduced. The respondent on the other hand contended that there was a contra entry in the profit and loss account and this meant that there was no real effect on the actual profits for the year. We had however remanded the matter as it was not clear what the effect of the so-called contra entry was. It was also not clear how the revaluation affected the profits in view of the fact that raw materials, etc., were valued at a higher figure than would have been the case if the valuation had been made in the same way as in the previous years and this higher valuation had gone into consumption as the debit side of the profit and loss account for that year indicated. Evidence was therefore led on remand to explain the position both with respect to the contra entry and also with respect to the effect on profits on account of revaluation in 1956-57. So far as the so-called contra entry is concerned, it is not now clear that it is not a contra entry even though it appears in the profit and loss account. The profit and loss account is in two parts. The first part is concerned with the working out of profit and the revalued stock appears on the debit side of the first part of the account showing that it might have affected the profits for that year. The so-called contra entry is in the second part of the profit and loss account which deals with allocation of profit and appears on the credit side. The entry is therefore not a contra entry because it appears in another part of the profit and loss account.It therefore remains to deal with the question whether the revaluation has affected the consumption of raw material, etc., with the result that the profits for the year have been depreciated in the profit and loss account. In this connexion the explanation of the respondent was that over a course of seventeen years before 1 April 1956, it had been adopting the policy of under-valuing stock at the end of the year with the result that in most of the seventeen years ending with 31 March 1956, there had been concealment of profits and the total of such concealment is Rs. 38.8 lakhs. In the year 1956-57, it is said that this concealed profit was brought out by the new method of accounting, but it made no difference to the profits for that year. That is why in the second part of the profit and loss account it found a place on the credit side and necessary provision was also made for taxes with respect to this profit of the previous years, Which was brought into the profit and loss account for this year. Reliance in this connexion is placed on the assessment orders of the Incometax Departments where the profit of Rs. 38.8 lakhs has been assessed to incometax in the various previous year. The reply of the appellants to this explanation is that by this method the respondent was able to depress the profit of many of the previous seventeen years and deprive the workmen of bonus. Further it is urged that by the method of revaluation the respondent has depressed the profit for this year and has tried to deprive the workmen of bonus which might be due. There is in our opinion some force in the contention of the appellants in this behalf. There is no doubt that when the system of undervaluing stock at the end of a year was adopted the profits were depressed in the previous years. Now in the year 1956-57 when the valuation system was changed, the change was brought about by showing the increased valuation on the debit side of the profit and loss account, thus increasing the valuation of raw materials, etc., consumed; the result of this may be to depress the profits for this year, as compared to what would have been the result if the valuation had continued an in the previous years. The appellants therefore pressed before the tribunal that the profit and loss account for the year 1956-57 might be made up again on the old valuation to show the real profit for that year and then the concealed profit may be brought out at the end of the year on the credit side of the profit and loss account. The respondent however was not prepared to reconstruct the balance sheet in this manner and did not help the tribunal in that behalf. The appellants therefore suggested a method of reconstructing the balance sheet on the basis that the revalution did not affect either side of the first part of profit and loss account for that year. On this basis, the appellants contended that there would be an additional profit of about Rs. 16.81 lakhs in that year and this figure has been accepted by the tribunal. The respondent however contended that this was not correct and that real profits had not been affected at all by the revaluation effected in 1956-57. Learned counsel for the respondent however has not been able to convince us, taking only the first part of the profit and loss account for the year 1956-57, that real profits have not been affected at all by this manner of accounting.The sum of Rs. 38.8 lakhs is made up of four items, namelyLAKHS.Rs.(1) Paper stock ... 7.1(2) Raw materials, etc. ... 17.7(3) General stores, etc. ... 13.5(4) Power and fuel ... .5Total ... 38.8Now, so far as raw materials, etc., are concerned, the profit and loss account shows that there was an opening balance of Rs. 62.76 lakhs worth of raw materials and a closing balance of Rs. 62.12 lakhs; worth of raw materials, so that so far as raw materials, etc., were concerned, the revaluation did not make much difference, for the opening balance as well as the closing balance were more or less the same and revaluation thus made both at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year cancelled out. As for paper stock, the opening balance was Rs. 32.17 lakhs including Rs. 7.1 lakhs for revaluation; the closing balance was Rs. 16.5 lakhs. If this was valued on the same basis as was prevalent in the previous years its proportionate value would be Rs. 12.5 lakhs only. So that taking paper stock alone on both debit and credit side, the profits were depressed by this method of valuation by Rs. 7.1 lakhs minus Rs. 4.0 lakhs, i.e., by Rs. 3.1 lakhs. Turning now to general stores, etc., the excess valuation was Rs. 13.5 lakhs. The profit and loss; account does not show what was the opening balance and the closing balance of general stores; but we find from Sch. F of current assets in the balance sheet that the general stores, etc., as valued on 31 March were Rs. 75.7 lakhs at the old valuation. To this Rs. 13.5 lakhs have to be added on account of revaluation showing an opening stock of Rs. 89.2 lakhs. The same schedule shows that the closing balance of current assets of general stores was Rs. 92.3 lakhs at the end of the year at the new valuation. So it is clear that in the case of general stores also, revaluation would not make any diffrence in the same way as in the case of raw materials.Turning to power and fuel we find from the same Sch. F that coal as valued on 31 March 1956 was worth Rs. 2.26 lakhs. At the new valuation it would be worth Rs. 2.76 lakhs, on 1 April 1956. Further Sch. F shows that at the end of the year there was coal worth Rs. 2.12 lakhs; left as closing stock. So in the case of coal also it cannot be said that revaluation made any difference so far as the item is concerned, for the amount at the end of the year was Practically the same as at the beginning of the year. We are therefore of opinion that the real difference on account of this change of valuation to the profit was on account of paper stock to the extent of Rs. 3.1 lakhs. We do not think that it would be right to take into account what has been provided in the second part of the balance sheet with respect to Rs. 38.8 lakhs in the shape of extra salary, wages, bonus, extra directors commission and extra managing agents commission for that will comeout of the profits of past years which have been brought in the second part of the profit and loss account. Therefore, looking at the first part of the profit and loss account along with Sch. F of the current assets included in the balance sheet we have come to the conclusion that the real amount by which the profit was depressed by this method of accounting was Rs. 3.1 lakhs and not Rs. 16.81 lakhs as found by the tribunal and as contended on behalf of the appellants. This is in accordance with the manner in which Sri Roy Mukherjee appearing for the appellants reconstructed the balance sheet. The only mistake that Sri Roy Mukherjee made was to take the increased valuation under general stores at its face value because the profit and loss account did not show what was the opening balance with respect to general stores and what was the closing balance. That is however apparent from Sch. F attached to the balance sheet which also gives the exact amount of the opening and closing balance of raw materials, etc., which tallies with the figures in the profit and loss account. We are therefore of opinion that taking the balance sheet Sch. F and the profit and loss account, the profit shown in the profit and loss account should be increased by Rs. 3.1 lakhs on account of the change in the method of accounting.5. Regarding (2). - So far as incometax is concerned the contention of the appellants to that the tribunal was wrong in not taking in to account the development rebate in considering the statutory depreciation and arriving at the figure of incometax to be deducted. We are of opinion that this contention must be accepted. The reason why the tribunal did not take into account the development rebate was that it thought that development rebate was not the same thing as initial depreciation which has to be taken into account in arriving at statutory depreciation. It is however clear from the Incometax Act that development rebate has taken the place of initial depreciation from 1956. Therefore, though the name is changed, development rebate in nothing more than initial depreciation and in working out the statutory depreciation before arriving at the profits from which incometax for purposes of the Full Bench formula has to be deducted, development rebate has to be taken into account. We may in this connexion refer to South India Millowners Association and others v. Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union and others [1962 - I L.L.J. 223] where development rebate was considered and it was pointed out that development rebate was in recognition of the claim for depreciation and had to be taken into account in ascertaining the available surplus. The figures worked out by the tribunal will therefore have to be corrected as development rebate must be treated as nothing other than initial depreciation.6. Regarding (3). - We now come to the question of rehabitation. In our judgment of 11 April 1963. We pointed out two alternative methods of working out rehabilitation. The tribunal has followed one of those methods and we fall to see any mistake in the calculation made by the tribunal in that behalf. It is not disputed that rehabilitation was worked out after full enquiry by the previous tribunal for the year 1954-55 and we can see nothing wrong in the tribunal starting with the rehabilitation figure worked out for the year 1954-55 and making adjustment thereto. It is however urged that available reserves to be deducted vary widely from year to year and that may introduce some element of error if figures are worked out in the manner the tribunal has done so. We are however not prepared to accept that the reserves to be deducted will vary so widely from year to year as to make any serious difference in the calculation and we are therefore not prepared to upset the calculation made by the tribunal; nor are we satisfied that in the present case the reserves have varied so widely as to call for any serious readjustment of the figures arrived at in the adjudication for the year 1954-55.Two further points were urged in this connexion. The first was that in working out rehabilitation, motor-cars, furniture, etc., were not considered though when deducting depreciation for the year from the actual rehabilitation amount worked out, the depreciation allowed on motor cars and furniture has also been deducted. This point was not raised before the tribunal and in the circumstances we are not prepared to allow this point to be raised for the first time before us. It is true that in some charts filed before the tribunal by the respondent depreciation to be deducted was shown an not the full depreciation but the full depreciation minus the depreciation for motor-cars, etc.; but the point does not seem to have been properly urged before the tribunal. If it had been properly urged, the tribunal would have considered whether the rehabilitation amount included rehabilitation for motor-cars, etc., or not. In the circumstances we are not prepared to allow this point to be raised before us for the first time. Then it was urged that the tribunal has not taken into account wealth tax and dividend tax which the respondent had to pay for the years in question. Assessment orders have been filed before us to show the figures of wealth tax and dividend tax for the years in question, and reliance in this connexion has been placed on Bombay Gas Company v. their workmen [1961 - I L.L.J. 508] where it has been held that wealth tax should be allowed to be deducted as a prior charge. It appears however that the question of wealth tax and dividend tax was not raised before the tribunal. So far as wealth tax is concerned, as that has been allowed by this Court in the case referred to above as a prior charge and as assessment orders have been produced before us, we think we should allow it even though it was not raised before the tribunal, for there can be no dispute as to the amount in view of the assessment orders filed. But so far as the dividend tax is concerned, it has not been considered by this Court so far and it raises certain questions of principle; we are therefore not prepared to allow the respondent to raise the question of dividend tax before us for the first time.It now remains to consider the position with respect to each year separately. We shall take the figure arrived at by the tribunal on remand and make necessary corrections in view of what we have said above on the three points which were debated before us :1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59(Rupees in lakhs)Adjusted gross profit ... 105.65 114.42 104.25 137.63Deduct depreciation ... 15.56 24.15 24.62 29.06 ------- ------- ------- ------- Balance ... 91.09 90.27 79.63 108.57Deduct incometax after taking into account development rebate ... 30.71 44.21 39.60 54.20------- Balance ... 60.38 46.06 40.03 54.37Deduct wealth tax ... ... 2.86 2.83 3.00 ------- ------- ------- ------- Balance ... 60.38 43.20 37.20 51.37Deduct 6 per cent interest on capital ... 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75Balance ... 51.63 34.45 28.45 42.62Deduct 4 per cent interest on working capital ... 5.44 5.59 6.93 6.59------ Balance ... 46.19 28.86 21.52 36.03Deduct rehabilitation ... 39.65 22.17 23.46 20.92 ------- ------- ------- ------ Available surplus ... 6.54 6.69 1.94 15.117. This corrected table shows that there is available surplus in the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1958-59 but no available surplus for the year 1957-58. The appellants are not therefore entitled to any bonus for the year 1957-58 but they will be so entitled for the remaining three years. The basic wage is said to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs a month. We think therefore that for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 the appellants are entitled to one months basic wage as bonus, taking into account the rebate which the respondent will get from the Incometax Department on the amount of bonus paid. As for the year 1958-59, we are of opinion that the appellants are entitled to get bonus equal to two months basic wage.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]3. Of the four points then in dispute, the matter of working capital is no longer in dispute, as the parties are agreed about the finding of the tribunal in that connexion. It therefore remains to deal With the first three points only as indicated above and we shall take them one by one.4. Regarding (1).The dispute in this connexion was with respect to revaluation of some of the current assets in the yearwhich resulted in an increased figure of Rs. 38.8 lakhs on the debit side of the profit and loss account of that year.The contention of the appellant in that connexion was that this method of revaluation resulted in showing inflated figures in terms of money for the cost of raw materials, etc., consumed with the result that actual profit wase respondent on the other hand contended that there was a contra entry in the profit and loss account and this meant that there was no real effect on the actual profits for the year. We had however remanded the matter as it was not clear what the effect of thecontra entry was. It was also not clear how the revaluation affected the profits in view of the fact that raw materials, etc., were valued at a higher figure than would have been the case if the valuation had been made in the same way as in the previous years and this higher valuation had gone into consumption as the debit side of the profit and loss account for that year indicated. Evidence was therefore led on remand to explain the position both with respect to the contra entry and also with respect to the effect on profits on account of revaluation inSo far as thecontra entry is concerned, it is not now clear that it is not a contra entry even though it appears in the profit and loss account. The profit and loss account is in two parts. The first part is concerned with the working out of profit and the revalued stock appears on the debit side of the first part of the account showing that it might have affected the profits for that year. Thecontra entry is in the second part of the profit and loss account which deals with allocation of profit and appears on the credit side. The entry is therefore not a contra entry because it appears in another part of the profit and loss account.Ittherefore remains to deal with the question whether the revaluation has affected the consumption of raw material, etc., with the result that the profits for the year have been depreciated in the profit and loss account.In this connexion the explanation of the respondent was that over a course of seventeen years before 1 April 1956, it had been adopting the policy ofundervaluing stock at the end ofthe year with the result that in most of the seventeen years ending with 31 March 1956, there had been concealment of profits and the total of such concealment is Rs. 38.8 lakhs. In the yearit is said that this concealed profit was brought out by the new method of accounting, but it made no difference to the profits for that year. That is why in the second part of the profit and loss account it found a place on the credit side and necessary provision was also made for taxes with respect to this profit of the previous years, Which was brought into the profit and loss account for this year. Reliance in this connexion is placed on the assessment orders of the Incometax Departments where the profit of Rs. 38.8 lakhs has been assessed to incometax in the various previous year. Thereply of the appellants to this explanation is that by this method the respondent was able to depress the profit of many of the previous seventeen years and deprive the workmen of bonus. Further it is urged that by the method of revaluation the respondent has depressed the profit for this year and has tried to deprive the workmen of bonus which might bedue. There is in our opinion some force in the contention of the appellants in this behalf. There is no doubt that when the system ofundervaluing stock at the end ofa year was adopted the profits were depressed in the previous years. Now in the yearwhen the valuation system was changed, the change was brought about by showing the increased valuation on the debit side of the profit and loss account, thus increasing the valuation of raw materials, etc., consumed; the result of this may be to depress the profits for this year, as compared to what would have been the result if the valuation had continued an in the previous years. Theappellants therefore pressed before the tribunal that the profit and loss account for the yearmight be made up again on the old valuation to show the real profit for that year and then the concealed profit may be brought out at the end of the year on the credit side of the profit and losse respondent however was not prepared to reconstruct the balance sheet in this manner and did not help the tribunal in thatts therefore suggested a method of reconstructing the balance sheet on the basis that the revalution did not affect either side of the first part of profit and loss account for that year. On this basis, the appellants contended that there would be an additional profit of about Rs. 16.81 lakhs in that year and this figure has been accepted by thee respondent howevercontended that this was not correct and that real profits had not been affected at all by the revaluation effected inLearned counsel forhas not been able to convince us, taking only the first part of the profit and loss account for the yearthat real profits have not been affected at all by this manner ofit is clear that in the case of general stores also, revaluation would not make any diffrence in the same way as in the case of raw materials.Turning to power and fuel we find from the same Sch. F that coal as valued on 31 March 1956 was worth Rs. 2.26 lakhs. At the new valuation it would be worth Rs. 2.76 lakhs, on 1 April 1956. Further Sch. F shows that at the end of the year there was coal worth Rs. 2.12 lakhs; left as closing stock. So in the case of coal also it cannot be said that revaluation made any difference so far as the item is concerned, for the amount at the end of the year was Practically the same as at the beginning of the year. We are therefore of opinion that the real difference on account of this change of valuation to the profit was on account of paper stock to the extent of Rs. 3.1 lakhs. We do not think that it would be right to take into account what has been provided in the second part of the balance sheet with respect to Rs. 38.8 lakhs in the shape of extra salary, wages, bonus, extra directors commission and extra managing agents commission for that will comeout of the profits of past years which have been brought in the second part of the profit and loss account. Therefore, looking at the first part of the profit and loss account along with Sch. F of the current assets included in the balance sheet we have come to the conclusion that the real amount by which the profit was depressed by this method of accounting was Rs. 3.1 lakhs and not Rs. 16.81 lakhs as found by the tribunal and as contended on behalf of the appellants. This is in accordance with the manner in which Sri Roy Mukherjee appearing for the appellants reconstructed the balance sheet. The only mistake that Sri Roy Mukherjee made was to take the increased valuation under general stores at its face value because the profit and loss account did not show what was the opening balance with respect to general stores and what was the closing balance. That is however apparent from Sch. F attached to the balance sheet which also gives the exact amount of the opening and closing balance of raw materials, etc., which tallies with the figures in the profit and loss account. We are therefore of opinion that taking the balance sheet Sch. F and the profit and loss account, the profit shown in the profit and loss account should be increased by Rs. 3.1 lakhs on account of the change in the method of accounting.5. Regarding (2).So far as incometax is concerned the contention of the appellants to that the tribunal was wrong in not taking in to account the development rebate in considering the statutory depreciation and arriving at the figure of incometax to be deducted. We are of opinion that this contention must be accepted. The reason why the tribunal did not take into account the development rebate was that it thought that development rebate was not the same thing as initial depreciation which has to be taken into account in arriving at statutory depreciation. It is however clear from the Incometax Act that development rebate has taken the place of initial depreciation from 1956. Therefore, though the name is changed, development rebate in nothing more than initial depreciation and in working out the statutory depreciation before arriving at the profits from which incometax for purposes of the Full Bench formula has to be deducted, development rebate has to be taken into account. We may in this connexion refer to South India Millowners Association and others v. Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union and others [1962I L.L.J. 223] where development rebate was considered and it was pointed out that development rebate was in recognition of the claim for depreciation and had to be taken into account in ascertaining the available surplus. The figures worked out by the tribunal will therefore have to be corrected as development rebate must be treated as nothing other than initial depreciation.6. Regarding (3).We now come to the question of rehabitation. In our judgment of 11 April 1963. We pointed out two alternative methods of working out rehabilitation. The tribunal has followed one of those methods and we fall to see any mistake in the calculation made by the tribunal in that behalf. It is not disputed that rehabilitation was worked out after full enquiry by the previous tribunal for the yearand we can see nothing wrong in the tribunal starting with the rehabilitation figure worked out for the yearand making adjustment thereto.This corrected table shows that there is available surplus in the years59 but no available surplus for the yearThe appellants are not therefore entitled to any bonus for the yearbut they will be so entitled for the remaining three years. The basic wage is said to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs a month. We think therefore that for the years57 the appellants are entitled to one months basic wage as bonus, taking into account the rebate which the respondent will get from the Incometax Department on the amount of bonus paid. As for the yearwe are of opinion that the appellants are entitled to get bonus equal to two months basic wage.