LexTHE HONORARY SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIA MILLOWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS versus THE SECRETARY, COIMBATORE DISTRICT TEXTILE WORKERS' UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J962 a.au .. v. TIN St.u •f 14 Uar11s•tra .SW.. c J. JHI FbU4? I. 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. person, as laid down in els. (4) & (5) of Art. 22. One of those safegui.rds is that the detained peraon has the right to be communicated the grounds on which the ordor of detention has been made against him, in order that he may be able to make his representation against the order of dentention. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this oaee, it has not been shown that the appellant had the opportunity, which the law contemplates in his favour, making an effective representation against his detention. On this ground alone we declare his detention illegal, and ~et aside the Order of the High Court and the Order of Detention pa88ed against him. Appeal allo!jled. THE HO:N'ORA:i;tY SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIA MILLOWl\"ERS' ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY, COfMBATOH.E DISTRlill TEXTILE WO~KERS' UNION [And connected avpeals) (P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) I ndll8trial Di8puie-Boniu-Rehabilitation-Life of t.z- tile mnchinery-C/aim in. ruptel of old machi~ Det1elopmntt rebate-D•dwction-U ae of dtprtciatwn amount-lnt.rut-Tu•o Reparate conce,.,.._When eonali· It& one unit-Indian lnoome-kJ:c Act, 1922 (11of1922), •· IO (2)(vi), Erp/anation (2), prolliao (b). In respect of the di.pules which arose between certain textile mills a.ild their respective employees in regard to the bonus for the year 1956, the matter was reftrred to the Indus- trial Tribunal which made its award on September 5, ·19~8. The Tribunal held, (1) that the period allowed for rehabilita- ting textile machlne1y should be 25 years and n'>t 15 as con- tended by the appellants, and that eome addition should be made to the estimated life of the machinery by reference to I .. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 927 practical considerations as to when the employer would be able to make rehabilitation in fact, (2) that in the case of old machinery purchased, only half of the claim for rehabilitation should be normally allowed and whether more or less should be allowed would depend upon the age of the machinery at the time of the purchase, (3) that the amount al lowed in respect of the development rebate could not be treated as a prior charge, and ( 4) that interest in respect of the amount of depreciation used by way of working capital could not be allowed. Held: (I) that it is well settled that in determining the claim of the employer for rehabilitation twl factors are essen- tial to ascertain, viz., (I) the multiplier which has been deter- mined by reference to the purchase price of the machinery and the price which has to be paid for rehabilitation or replace- ment, and (ii) the divisor which has to be determined by decid- ing the probable life of the machinery. When determining the divisor, it is not open to the Tribunal to add to the estimated life of the machinery on the ground that the employer may, in fact, not be able to rehabilitate or replace his machinery. In finding out the life of the machinery in a. particular case, no rule can be laid down because the question has to he determined on the evidence. adduced by the parties. The Mill Owners Association, Bombay v. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, [1950] L.L.J. 1247 and Associa- ted Industries Ltd. v. It. Workmen, (1958) 2 L.L.J. 138, cc,nsidered. (2) that it would not be riitht to insist that an employer who purchases second hand machinery must rehabilitate it by purchasing second hand machinery in turn, and in dealing with the question of the rehal:iilitation of second hand machinery purchased by an employer it would he erroneous to hold" that only 50% of rehabilitation amount should he allowed. (3) that the development rebate allowed is in part recognition of the claim for depreciation, and proviso (h) to explanation (2) ofs. 10(2)(vil of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as introduced by the Finance Act, i 958, cai;mot he treated as constituting a bar against taking the said amount into consideration in ascertaining the available surplus. The expression "distribution by way e>f profits" in the said proviso means the distribution of profits to the partners. ( 4) that if an employer shows that the amount of depreciation was actually available and has, in fact, been used as working capital during the releyant year, he would be entitled to claim a reasonable return on the said amount. 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.