Case: Aluminium Corporation Vs. Their Workmen and Others

These appeals by special leave are against an award of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58 to workmen of the appellant-Company. The appellant which is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium from basic material has its factory at J. K. Nagar near Asansol in West Bengal. A dispute having arisen between the appellant and some of its workmen on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58 it was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, by an order of the Government of West Bengal. In another reference made by that Government to the same Tribunal on May 2, 1959 a dispute between the Company and its workmen employed at its factory at J. K. Nagar, Asansol, on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58 was one of the matters referred. In the first reference the Tribunal has awarded in favour of the workmen bonus equivalent to three months basic wages inclusive of the amount (equivalent to half a months basic wages) that has already been paid by the Company voluntarily. In the second reference the parties filed joint petitions before the Tribunal agreeing to abide by any decision or award whatsoever passed by the Tribunal regarding the bonus issue in the first reference and requesting that similar award be made regarding the issue of bonus in both references. The Tribunal accordingly passed an order in the second reference that the workmen would get the same bonus as awarded in the first reference. The result of this is that the workmen covered by the second reference would also be entitled to three months basic wages as bonus for the year 1957-58.

Reasoning: It would be improper and indeed impossible in most cases to come to a correct conclusion on these matters by scrutiny of the balance-sheet itself. Whenever a Company claims deductions from the gross profits under the head return on reserves used as working capital,as prior charge, for ascertaining the available surplus under the Full Bench Formula it is necessary and proper that the accountant, or other competent officers of the Company should come into the witness-box and assist the Tribunals in coming to a satisfactory conclusion on the question.No such attempt was made in this case and we find it impossible to say from the evidence on the record as to what portion, if any, of the reserves was actually used as working capital. The tribunal would have been justified in rejecting in toto the Companys claim under this head. The allowance of Rs. 0.43 lacs as prior charge on return on reserves used as working capital was therefore an error in favour of -the appellant. There is no reason therefore for reducing the figure as found by the Tribunal as the available surplusLastly it was suggested by Mr. Sastri that in deciding what should be allowed as bonus out of this available surplus the Tribunal should have proceeded on the basis that one months basic wages amount to Rs. 90, 000 and not Rs. 50, 00 as mentioned by the Tribunal. This figure of Rs. 90, 000/- has been given by the Companys Manager as the total wage of the workmen and the employees, including officers.We are told that the officers were also paid bonus and that also has to come out of the available surplus. So Mr. Sastri argued, though rather faintly, that the bonus should have been fixed on the basis of Rs. 90, 000 wage bill. We do not think that to be the correct approach. The Industrial Tribunal is not concerned with what is paid by the Company to its officers. It is concerned only with the workmens claim of bonus. For deciding therefore what part of the available surplus should be paid to the workmen as bonus the wage bill of the workmen only has to be considered. It is -not disputed that the wage bill (basic wage) of the workmen, excluding the officers, was Rs. 50, 000. The Tribunal has therefore committed no error in fixing the bonus figures on this basisWe wish to make it clear that what we have said in this judgment will not stand in the way of the employer substantiating a claim for rehabilitation charge by proper evidence, in any future dispute on that question