THE TINNEVELLY-TUTICORIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 22-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
one of the objects of the appellant bank is to carry on 
the general business of banking and therefore subject 
Bihar State 
h 
C 
· 
S · t' 
A t 't h 
t 
C 
P 
t . 
B 
k to t e 
o-operat1ve ome ies 
c , I 
as o carry on 
o-o era ive 
an 
• 
• 
b 
k 
Lrd. 
its business in the manner that ordmary an s do. 
v. 
It may be added that the various heads under s. 6 of 
Commissioner of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of that Act 
Income Tax 
applicable to these various heads are mutually exclu-
Kapur]. 
z960 
February 22 
sive. Section 12 is a residuary section and does not 
come into operation until the preceding heads are 
excluded. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Basant Rai 
Tak hat Singh (1 ). 
In our opinion, the High Court was in error in 
treating interest derived from deposits as not arising 
from the business of the Bank and therefore not fall-
ing within the income exempted under the Notifica-
tion. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the 
judgment and order of the High Court set aside. The 
appellant will have its costs in this Court and in the 
Court below. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE TINNEVELLY-TUTICORIN ELECTltIC 
SUPPLY CO. LTD., 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Bonus~Full Bench formula-If applic-
able to workmen in electricity undcrtaking--Elcctric Supply Act. r948 
(54 of r948). s. 57. Sixth Schedule, para, r7(2)(b)(xi). 
Can the Full Bench •formula for calculation of bonus apply to 
a claim of bonus made by \.vorkmen engaged in electricity con-
cerns and undertakings? That ¥.'as the question raised for deci-
sion in this appeal. A Special Bench of the Labour Appellate 
Tribunal held in the affirmative and the correctness of its decision 
was challenged in this appeal. It was contended on behalf of the 
appellant company that the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (54 of 
1948) was a self-contained code intended to regulate the business 
and affairs of electricity concerns and that Act and not the 
formula applied to a claim of bonus by the workmen in an 
electricity concern. 
(r) (1933] I J.T.R, 197, 20I, 
.. 
. ' ... 
--
I 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
69 
Held, that the Special Bench had taken a correct view of the 
matter and its decision must be upheld. 
It is evident from the provisions of the Electricity Supply 
Act, 1948, and its schedules that the respective fields of operation 
of the Act and of the principles of industrial adjudication are 
• 
wholly different, and so there can be no conflict between them and 
their relevance and validity in their own spheres are beyond 
question. 
_., 
While the Full Bench formula seeks to ensure social justice 
to workmen by apportioning a share of the profits to them and 
thus minimise the gap between the actual and the living wages, 
the Act does not provide for wages at all. But it is improper to 
suggest on that basis that the workmen in electricty under-
takings can be denied social justice. Just as the relevant indus-
trial principles have to be applied for framing a wage structure 
for such workmen so also must the problem of bonus be solved 
in a like manner. 
The working-sheet prepared under the method of account-
ing required by the Act can be no basis for calculation of the 
amount of bonus since it is not possible to ascertain the gross 
profit therefrom and the Full Bench Formula has to be appli-
ed on the basis of the profit and loss account which a company 
has to keep under the Companies Act. 
Baroda Borough Municipality v. Its Workmen. [1957] S.C.R. 
33, referred to. 
Moreover, the intention of the Legislature in enacting cl. (vi) 
of paragraph 17(2)(b) of Sixth Schedule to the Act clearly 'was to 
1' 
include a claim of bonus is within the expenses covered by it and 
it was to set at rest any possible doubt on that score that cl. (xiii) 
was added by a subsequent amendment. 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 23 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated 
September 29, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, 
Bombay, in Appeal (Mad.) No. 96 of 1956, arising m;it 
of the Award dated April 9, 1956, of the Industrial 
Tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 52of1954. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, and Naunit Lal, for the 
appellants. 
T. S. Venkataraman and M. K. Ramamurthi, for 
the respondents. 
1960. February, 22. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
T. T. E. Supply 
Co. Ltd. 
v. 
Its Workmen 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The app

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