LexTHE SREE MEENAKSHI MILLS, LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Ball Ral Bhagwotl J. 1957 NortllllMi, S 878 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [19581 Appellate Tribunal nor was either of them mentioned in the statement of case filed by the respondents in this Court. Th<i!y were taken for the first time in the arguments advanced before us by Shri P. K. Chatter- jee. We have, however, dealt with the same because we thought that we should not deprive the respon- dents of the benefit of any argument which could possibly be advanced in their favour. We are, therefore, of opinion that no appeal lay from thE:. decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, that the Labour Appel- late Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order made by the Industrial Tribunal granting the appellant permission to discharge the respondents under s. 33 of the Act and that the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is liable, to be set aside. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and restore the order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, on date May 14, 1953. The appellant will be entitled to its costs of this appeal from the respondents. Appeal allowed. THE SREE MEENAKSHI MILLS, LTD. ti. TREIB WORKMEN (and connected appeals) (BHAGWATI, J.U"ER IMAM and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Available aurplus-Deter- mination of-DepTeciation allowable under Income-taz Act, if can be deducted as prioT cha,-ge-Pa.Tt of depreciation claimed disallowed-PTovision foT highe,- amount. of income-tax, if ca.n be allowed-Appellate Tribunal's poweT of Teview. The worlanen demanded bonus for the year 1950-51 on the allegation that the employers had made profits during the relevant year. The employers resisted the demand on S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 879 the ground that there was a trading loss in the year and as 1957 such no bonus was payable. To determine the available Tll s surplus out of which bonus was to be paid, the employers MeenJsn~Wlts deduct&d out of their gross profits an amount for deprecia- Ltd. • tion admissible under the Income-tax Act. The industrial v. tribunal disallowed a portion of the depreciation and found Their Workmen that there were profits in the relevant year and awarded three months' bonus to the workmen. The employers pre- ferred appeals to the Labour Appellate Tribunal but they were dismissed. The employers then applied to the Appel- late Tribunal for a review and the Tribunal dismissed the application holding that it had no power to review its own decision and that even if it had the power it would not grant the review as no case for review had been made out. Held, that the whole of the depreciation admissible under the Income-tax Act is not allowable in determining the available surplus. The initial depreciation and the addi- tional depreciation are abnormal additions to the income- tax depreciation and it would not be fair to the workmen if these depreciations are rated as prior charges before the available surplus is ascertained. Considerations on which the grant of additional depreciation may be justified under the Income-tax Act are different from considerations of social justice and fair apportionment on which the original full Bench formula in regard to the payment of bonus to the workmen is based. That is why only normal diprecia. · tion including multiple shift depreciation should rank as prior charges. U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1955} L.AC. 659, approved. The Labour Appellate Tribunal had the power to review its own orders. M/s. Martin Buru Ltd. v. R. N. Benerjee, [1958] S.C.R. 514, followed. The method adopted by the industrial tribunals in deter- mining the trading profits of the employers is an industrial dispute, does not conform to the. requirements and provi- sions of the Income-tax Act, and it would, therefore, be fallacious to assume that gross profits determined by the industrial tribunal can be taken to be gross profits that would necessarily be taxable under the lncome-tax Act. In determining the· available surplus for payment of bonus provision for a higher amount of income-tax cannot be made merely because the claim to initial and additional depreciation has been disallowed which increase the amount of gross profits. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 217 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the decision date 880
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.