BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM MFG. CO PRIVATE LTD. versus GOVIND GOPAL WAGHMARE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 24-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1y60 
A1arch 24. 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[HJ60] 
BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM J\H'G. 00. 
PRIVATE LTD. 
'V. 
GOVIND GOPAL \VAGHMARE AND ANOTHEH, 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. o. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Full Bench formula-lncomc:tax payable-
hd. 
• 
The workmen of the appellant company claimed four months, 
\vages including dearness allo\vancc as bonus for the year 1952, 
and retrospective operation of the increased wage scale to be fixed 
by the Industrial Tribunal from March l, 1952. 
The appellant 
agreed to the increased wage scale suggested by the Tribunal but 
wanted that it should be linked to some guaranteed production, 
and opposed its operation retrospectively on the ground that there 
had been eliberate slowing down of production by the workmen 
in the previous years. The Tribunal found that there was some 
justiffoation in the appellant's contention that there was consider-
able go-slow which had affected production and ordered that 
retrospective effect should be given to its order relating to increase 
in wages which was passed on May 13; 1957, from June r, 1956, 
and not March l, r952, as claimed by the workmen. The increased 
\Vages \Vere not linked to any guaranteed production but it \vas 
made clear that the workers would give certain reasonable produc-
tion to which the workmen agreed. The Tribunal granted five 
months' basic wages by way of bonus on the basis of the Full Bench 
.formula which is generally applied to these matters. 
On appeal 
by the Appellant-company by special leave : 
Held, that there was no reason for interfei·ence with the order 
of the Tribunal fixing the date as June l, 1956, from which the 
increased wages should come into force and that the Tribunal had 
jurisdiction to award five months' basic wag_es by way of bonus. 
For the purpose of the Full Bench formula, the income-
tax payable has to be deducted on the figures worked out 
according to the formula and it is immaterial what the actual 
income-tax paid is-whether more or less. 
OrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 93 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
May 13, 1957, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in 
H,eference (I.T.) No. 166 of 1955. 
R. J. Kolah, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Ram-
eshwar Nath and P. L. Vuhra, for the appellants. 
K. R. Ohaudhury and Janardan Shanna, for the 
respondents Nos. l and 2. 
• 
• -
• 
• 
... 
.. 
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
379 
1960. March 24. 
The ,Judgment of the Court waf\ 
delivered by 
WANOHOO, J.-This appeal by special leave raises 
two questions, namely, (i) bonus for the year 1952 and 
(ii) retrospective operation of the order of the Indus-
trial Tribunal relating to increase in wages. The 
appellant is a company manufacturing barrels and 
drums at Bombay. There was a dispute between the 
appella1'lt and its workmen about a number of matters, 
which was referred to the tribunal by the Government 
of Bombay on November l 'l, 1955. In respect of the 
two matters which are now raised in appeal the work-
men claimed (i) four months' wages including dearness 
allowance as bonus for the year 1952 and (ii) retros-
pective operation of the wage-scale to be fixed by the 
tribunal from March 1, 1952. 
So far as the increase in wages is concerned, the 
appellant agreed to the scale suggested by the tribunal 
but it opposed the grant of the increased scale retros-
pectively and also wanted that the increased wages 
should he linked to some guaranteed production. The 
reason for this was that the appellant felt that there 
had been deliberate slowing down of production by 
the workmen in the previous years. The tribunal was 
qf opinion that there was some justification in the 
appellant's contention that there had beell consider~ 
able go-slow which had affected production. Taking 
that into account it ordered that retrospective effect 
should be given to its order which was passed on 
May 13, 1957 from June 1, 1956. As to the linking of 
the increased wages to a certain guaranteed produc-
tion it found it difficult to lay down any norm itself; 
but it made it clear that the increase in wages was 
made by it on the basis that the workers would give a 
·certain reasonable production and noted that the 
workers were agreeable to do that. It, however, re-
commended that immediately after the award had 
been given, 'an expert should be appointed by agree-
ment, if possible, to go into this question. It also said 
that in case i

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