THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD., DWARKA CEMENT WORKS, DWARKA versus ITS WORKMEN & ANOTHER

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 05-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
925 
In our opinion on the plain construction of the 
words used ins. 116 of the amending Act, s. 342A is 
available to the appellant. The High Court, it appears, 
was misled into construing the words in clause (c) of 
s. 116 i.e. "as if this Act had not been passed". The 
High Court was therefore in error and the appellant is 
entitled, in our view, as a competent witness for the 
defence to testify in disproof of the charges made 
against him or any other person charged together with 
him at the same trial. 
Anant Gopal 
Sheorey 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
We would, therefore; allow this appeal,.set aside the 
order of the courts below and hold that the application 
made by the appellant to appear as a witness was 
well-founded and should have been allowed. 
• 
Appeal allowed . 
THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD., 
DW ARKA CEMENT WORKS, DW ARKA 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN & ANOTHER 
(S. R. DAS c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, s. K. DAS, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Available surplus-Determination 
cf-Full Bench formula-Basis-Applicability-Revision if required 
-Prior Charges-Mode of calculation-Gross profits, ascertainment 
cf-Rehabilitation charges, how determined-Gratuity fund, whether 
can be claimed as prior charge-Distribution of surplus-Overtime 
payment, if can be taken into consideration in awarding bonus. 
For the year 1953-54, the employers pai"- bonus to the 
workmen equal to three months' wages, but the workmen 
demanded bonus equivalent to seven months and six months 
basic wages with dearness allowance. The employers contended 
that after making deductions for the prior charges from the 
gross profits in accordance with the formula evolved by the Full 
Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Mill Owners Associa- . 
tion, Bombay v. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, (1950) L.L.J.' 
• 
. 1247, there was no available surplus left an4 consequently the 
Kapur]. 
r959 
May 5. 
1959 
~}1~· Associated 
·Cement 
Companies Ltd. 
.. _. 
•. v. 
Its· Workmen 
~ . J,' 
.. 
• 
• 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
workmen could claim no bonus. The workmen countered that 
the formula required revision as the employers were becoming 
increasingly more rehabilitation conscious and their appetite 
for the provision for rehabilitation was fast growing with the 
result that in most cases, after allowing for rehabilitation, there 
was no surplus left for the payment of bonus and the main 
object of the formula was thus frustrated. The workmen further 
contended that the whole of the rehabilitation expenses should 
not be provided for out of trading profits and that the claim for 
rehabilitation should be fixed at a reasonable amount and the 
industry should be required to find the balance from other 
sources : 
Held, that though there may be some force in the plea 
made for the revision of the Full Bench formula, the problem 
raised by the said plea is of such a character that it can be 
appropriately considered only by a high-powered commission 
and not by this Court while hearing the present group of 
appeals. Besides the Full Bench formula had on the whole 
worked fairly satisfactorily in a large number of indu..tries all 
over the country, and the claim for bonus should be decided by 
Tribunals on the basis of this formula without attempting to 
revise it. The formula was elastic enough to meet reasonably 
the claims of the industry and labour for fair play and justice. 
If the content of each item specified in the formula was deter-
mined objectively in the light of all relevant and material facts, 
the Tribunals would generally find it possible to make reason-
able adjustments between the rival claims and provide for a fair 
distribution of the available surplus. 
Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, 
[1955] l S.C.R. 991, Baroda Borough Municipality v. Its Workmen, 
[1957]S.C.R. 33, Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 
[1958] S.C.R. 878 and The State of Mysore v. The Workers of 
Kolar Gold Mines, [1959] S.C.R. 895, referred to. 
The formula was based on two considerations: first, that 
labour was entitled to claim a share in the trading profits of the 
industry, because it had partially contributed to the same; and 
second, that labour was entitled to claim that the gap between 
its actual wage and the living wage should, within reasonable 
limits, be filled up. In dealing with the claims for· bonus. the 
two-fold basis of the formu

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