LexTHE INDIAN OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., PRIVATE LTD., BOMBAY versus ITS WORKMEN & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. I959 think, with due respect, that the High Court should M/s. sarupchand have, on a correct appraisal of the legal situation, Hukamchand & Co. ordered this relief, and we accordingly, after explain- . v. . ing the law applicable .to the case, order the appro- union ;~India priate Income-tax Officer to hear and determine this & ' "' matter i.n the light of our observations. Hidayatullah J. We may set down here that the two partners of the firm to whom relief has been given by way of refund after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order undertook unconditionally to refund the amounts, before the matter is considered by the Income-tax Officer. We order that the two partners shall return the amounts in the manner to be ordered by the Income-tax Officer, before action is taken to determine the matter. I959 May 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout to be paid by respondents 2 and 3. The Union of India shall, however, bear its own costs. It may be noted that no separate costs were incurred by it either in this Court or in the Court below. It joined respondents 2 and 3 in the statement of the case filed in this Court and also appeared through the same counsel in both the Courts. Appeal allowed. THE INDIAN OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., PRIVATE LTD., BOMBAY v. ITS WORKMEN & ANOTHER (S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BRAGWATI, s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. V\TANOHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Full Bench formullt, if can be disregarded-Rehabilitation, claim for-Average life, calculation of -Method of Weighted Average-Exhmtsted Assets-Whether can be taken into account. The workmen claimed bonus for the years r952-53 and r953-54. The employers contended that on a proper working ./ ( (2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1003 out of the Full Bench formula there was no available surplus x959 and so no bonus was payable. The Tribunal held that the for- mula was not binding on it and on genuine considerations of The Indian Oxygen social justice it rejected the claim of the employers for rehabili- & Acetylene Co., tation and awarded bonus at the rate of t and r/3 annual basic Priuate Lid., wages for 1952-53 and 1953-54 respectively. Alternatively, the Bombay Tribunal found that in case the claim for rehabilitation had to v. be allowed there would be no available surplus in either of the Its Workmen relevant years. & Another Held that, the Tribunal was bound to give effect to the Full Bench formula and to allow the employer's claim for rehabi- litation. A.C.C. Ltd., Bombay v. Their Workmen, [1959] .S.C.R. 925, followed. In the calculations made by the Tribunal on its alternative finding it had acted on correct principles. It had rightly taken into account the price level prevailing in 1956 and not merely that prevailing in the two bonus years. The amount of rehabili- tation allowed in previous years had to be brought into account if it had not been used up but it was not shown that had not been in the present case. In calculating the average life of the buildings, machinery, etc., the method of weighted average was scientifically more accurate and gave a more accurate and realistic result. The rehabilitation costs of those assets which had spent their lives and were exhausted was also admissible in making calculations under the weightage method if in the relevant year such assets were in existence and use. Ci:vrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 753 of 1957. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th October, 1956, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (I. T.) Nos. 40 & 44 of 1956. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, N. A. Palkhivala, J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for the appellant. D. H. Buch and 1. N. Shroff, for respondent No. I. 0. L. Dudhia and 1. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 2. Janardhan Sharma and B. P. Maheshwari, for the Intervener. 1959. May 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. r959 GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave Th 1 d-.- 0 arises from a bonus dispute between the Indian Oxy- &' A;,,;1;,., "g'.,n gen & Acetylene Co., Private Ltd., (hereafter call~d l'dvate Ltd, the appellant) and its workmen, the relevant years Bombay for the bonus claim being 1952-53 and 1953-54. This v. claim was made separately by the workmen exeluding 1~ ~~:~;;:n the me
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.