ALUMINIUM CORPORATION versus THEIR WORKMEN AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 14-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
y 
r 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
429 
of its powers under s. 115 of the Code. 
The appeals must therefore fail and I agree with the 
order proposed by my learned brother Shah, J. 
Appeals dismissed. 
• ALUMINIUM CORPORATION 
tl. 
THEIR WORKMEN AND ORS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. w ANCHOO AND K. c. DAS 
GUPTA, Jj.) 
Industrial DiJ·pute-Award of bonus-Full Bench Formula-
Allou1ance under rehabilitation charges-Burden of proof-Rviden-
Uary valt.te of statements in balance sheets. 
The appellant is a manufacturer of aluminium, having two 
factories one near Asansol and another in Asansol. 
A dispute 
haviti.g arisen between the appellant and the respondent on 
the 
question of bonus for the year 1957-58 it was referred to the 
Industrial Tribunal by the Government of West Bengal. 
A simi-
lar dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen in the 
second factory and this also was referred to the same tribunal. In 
the second dispute the parties submitted joint petitions before 
the tribunal agreeing to abide by the award on the bonus ques-
tion in the first dispute and requesting that sin1ilar award be made 
in the second dispute also. 
In the first dispute the Tribunal 
awarded a bonus equivalent to three months basic wages inclusive 
of the amount that had already been paid by the company volun-
tarily. 
An a\vard was made in the second dispute also in 
similar terms. In determining the amount of available surplus the 
Tribunal applied the rules embodied in the Full Bench Formula 
which was approved by this Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 
v. Its workmen, [1959] S.C.R. 925, and allowed Rs. 43 lacs as 
return on reserve used as working capital and allowed nothing 
under the head rehabilitation 
charge. 
The appellant 
appealed 
.against both the awards by way of special leave granted by 
this 
Court. 
' 
. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that there was 
no justification in rejecting the claim under the head rehabilita-
tion charge. It was urged that the balance sheet of the company 
would by itself show \Vhat part of reserve was used as work-
ing 01.~ital and a comet way of reaching at the figure of reserve 
}963 
Major 
S. S. Khanna 
v 
Brig. 
F. /. Dillon 
1963 
August 14 
1963 
Aluminium 
Corporation 
v. 
Their Work-
men 
and 
Others 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964J 
used as working capital would be by deducting the current liabi-
lities of' the company in rhe balance sheet fron1 the current assets 
as shown therein. 
Held : ( i) The burden to prove any prior charge under the 
head of rehabilitation lies on the employer and that unless 
the 
employer has by proper evidence established its cl-aim 
to 
some 
a1nount as rehabilitation charge the clain1 must be rejected. 
In 
the present case the materials on the basis of which the multipliers 
and Cevisers have been arrived at have not been established 
by 
proper evidence and l"herefore the tribunal was justified in reject· 
ing the claim under the head rehabilitation charge. 
(ii) Regarding the claim of prior charges under the head 
"return 
on reserve 
used 
as 
working 
capital" 
the appellant 
gave \.videly 
diff~rent estimates .and this fact gives Sofie justifica-
tion in refusing to accept any of these as correct. The mere state-
ments in the balance sheet as regards current assets and lia-
bilities cannot be taken as correct. They have to be established by 
proper evidence by those responsible for preparing the balance sheet 
or Py other competent witnesses. 
This has not been done in the 
present case. 
Petted Turkey Dye Works v. Dye and Commercial Workert 
Union [1960] 2 S.C.R. 906, Khandesh Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. 
Ltd. v. Rastriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, fa/gaon, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 
841, Bengal Kagazkol Mazdoor Union v. The Titagarh Paper Mills 
Co. [ 1964 J 3 S.C.R. 38, referred to. 
(iii) The practice on the part of etnplriyers to show the 
entire a1nount of reserve available for use as working capital as 
the actual amount used was wrong. 
(iv) For 
deciding 
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 and the Tribunal is not 
concerned with what is paid by the company to its officers. 
The Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing the bonus 
figures .and the appeals are therefore dismissed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE ruRISDICT!ON : Civil Appeals Nos. 238 
and 818 of 1962. 
Appeals by special leave from the awards dated Oc-
tober 21, 1960, a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.