LexTHE AHMEDABAD MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL WORKERS' UNION versus THE AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
The I ntlore Iron
and Stttl
Registered Swck-
kolders' Assn.
v.
The State of
Madhya Pradesh
Uajendragadkar
.
J.
1961
July 28.
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
assent. This provision also shows that the decla·
ration made by the Act was intended to be pros·
pective in operation and it would affect lawsmade
!j,fter the commencement of the Act, and that
clearly must mean that if a law had been passed
prior to the commencement of the Act and it
authorised the imposition of a tax on the sale or
purchase of certain commodities its validity can-
not be challenged on the ground that the said com-
modities have been subsequently declared by the
Act to be essential for the life of the community.
The impugned notification with which we are con-
cerned and the Act under which it has been issued
are thus outside the purview of s. 3 of the Act.
That in substance IS the finding made by the
High Court on the second contention raised before
it by the appellant. In our opinion, the conclusion
of the High Court on this point is right.
In the result the appeafa fail and are. dis-
missed with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
THE AHMEDABAD MISCELLANEOUS
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS' UNION
v.
THE AHMEDABAD ELEC'1'RICITY CO. LTD.
(K.N. WANCHOO and K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Bonus-Payable by electricity company-Depr,ciation-
Modt nf calculation-Indian. -Ineome-ta,v Act (11 af 1922),
Rules-Scli. VII-Electricity (Supply) Act, W48 (54 of 1.948).
The respondent, which is an electricity company, con·
tested the claim of the appellant for three months' wages as
bonus on the ground that if calculation was made on the Full
Bench Formula evolved by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and
approved by this Court in the Associated Cement Companies
Ltd. v. Its
Workmen,
(l!J59) S. C.R. 925, there would
be no surplus available to pay the bonus. The question which
arose for decision was \Vhcther d.:;preciation should be calcu-
lated according to the provisions of Income-tax Act and the
. t
•
' I
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREl'IE COURT REPORTS
935
rules framed thereunder or in accordance with the provisions
of the Seventh Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
Heid, that the Income-tax rules should be applied in
calculating depreciation under the Full Bench formula in
preforence to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 even in the cases of electricity
companies.
U.P. Electric Sllpply Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen,
(1955) (2) L. L.]. 431, Shree Jleenakshi Mills Ltrl. v. The
Workmen, ( 1958) S.C.R. 878 and Tinnevelly Tuticorin Electric
Supply Co. v. Its Workmen, (1960) 3 S.C.R. 68, considered.
The Jli ll Owners Asaociation v. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor
San7, Bombay, (1950) 2 L. L.J 1247, referred to.
CrHL APPELLATE JURISlJICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 479 of 1960.
Appeal by specid leave from the Award
dated August 13, 1959, of the Industrial Court
Bombay in Ref. (I.C.) No. 159 of 1957.
G. T. Daru, k. Udayaruthnam and S.S. Shulda,
for the appellant.
D.
Vimarlalal, J. B.
Dadacltanji, Revinder
N(irain and 0. G. _,ffathur for the respondent.
1961. July 28. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave in an industrial matter. The -ippellant is
the Ahmedabad Miscellaneous Industrial Workers'
Union, and the dispute wliich went for adjudica-
tion before the Industrial Uourt Bombay was
with respect to bonus for the year ending Septem-
ber 1956. The appellant
claimed that three
months' wages should be awarded as bonus by
the respondent, which is the Ahmedabad Electri-
city Company Limited. The contention of the
respondent was that if a calculation was made in
accordance with the Full Bench Formula evolved
by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and approved
1961
The Ahmed.abad
Miscellaneous
Industrial
Workers' Uni.on
v.
The Ah1Md.abad
Electricity Ca.
Ltd.
Wanchoo J.
1901
The Ahrnedahad
J1iscellaneous
1 ndustrial ·
TV orkers' Union
v.
The Ahmedabad
Electricity Go.
Ltd.
Wanchoo J,
936
SUPREME COURT llEPORTS
(1962)
by this Court in the Associated Cement Comvcmies
Ltd. v. 11.i Worbnen ('), there wuulJ be no avail-
able surplus from which any bonus could be
awarded. The Industrial Court accepted the con-
tention of the respondent and rejected the appel-
lant's claim. The main dispute in the Industrial
Court centred on three points namely-
(i) whether depreciation should be cal-
culated according to the provisions of the Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.