LexU.P. ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. versus WORKMEN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
553 A U.P. ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. v. WORKMEN & ORS. September I, 1971 B [G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Reference-Co111pulsory acquisition of co1npany pendinJ? reference-Dispu1e regarding past bonus-Duty of Tribunal to co1nplete adjudication and 1nake A H'ard. C Industrial Dispute-Bonus-Available Surplus-Calculation of. D E F G H The State Government referred under s. 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, the question whether the appellants were to be requir- ed to pay bonus, to their workmen for the years 1960 to 1961 and if so at what rate. Pending the reference the undertakings of the appellant were compulsorily acquired. The Tribunal hov.•ever, continued the pro- ceedings and directed the employers to pay three months' basic wage as bonus for the period. To the profits of the company as found by the tribunal for warking out the Labour Appellate Tribunal Full Bench Formula, the tribunal added three claims made by the workmen, namely, ( 1) Excess debit to coal and fuel consumption; (2) estimated revenue for one month and (3) notional revenue on the basis of units produced but not accounted for. The T'ribunal allowed the expenses claimed by employers as prior charge as also the notional normal depreciation. The Tribunal also allowed as prior charge 5 per cent of the share capital while the management claimed it at six per cent. Jn appeal to this Court against the Award of he Tribunal the appellants also raised a preliminary p<>int that after the appellants' under- taking was taken oyer the industrial dispute, if any, between it and its workmen ceased to exist. Allowing the appeal, HELD : On the facts of the case, the Tiibunal went wrong in allow- ing any bonus to the workers. ( 1) The broad proposition that as soon as a particular industry ceases to function any adjudication in respect of a dispute which had occurred prior thereto becomes abortive, cannot be accepted. If the dispute is one which relates to the past working of the industry and in particular where the claim of the workmen is for benefits which according to their view had accrued to them in the past, it can hardly be said that the adju- dication is without any purpose. Where the dispute, as in the present case, is over a claim of benefits by way of bonus for work done in the past it would be the duty of the Tribunal to complete the adjudication and make its award. No doubt the main object of the Act is to ensure industrial peace but equally important is the purpose behind the Act that the workmen should not be deprived of their legitimate share of profil.9 made hy the industry. [556 C, 562 CJ Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v Pipraich Sugar Mills Mazdoor Unlon, [1956]! S.C.R. 872, M/s. Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1956] S.C.R. 781, The A.C.C. Ltd. v. Us Workmen, [1959] S.C.R. 925 at 955, 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1972] l s.c.R. Banaras Ice Faciory Ltd. v. /ts Worknien, [l 957) S.C.R. 143 aod Auto- mobile Products of India Ltd, v. Rukmaji Bala, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1'241, re- ferred to. Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A. D. Divikar, (1957] S.C.R. 121 and U.P. Electric Supply Co, Ltd. v. R. K. Shukla & Anr., ~1970] 1 S.C.R. 507, held inapplicable'. A "-....,' ( 2) ThE; Tribunal went wrong in adding back the three amounts to B the gross profits. · (a) Merely because a figure is to be found in the ~dited balance- sheet of the company, the industrial tribunal is not bound to accept the said figure, if challenged. But when, the, figures for~ expenses incurred in connection with fuel giv,e(l in the balanq;:-sheet are also deposed to by a witness the Tribunal should not have ·disca,,rded the evidence of the \Vitness on this point. The figure as sho\Vn in the .balance-sheet should C have been accCpt~d by the Tribunal~ anQ. there should have b'een no de- duction on 1u:count of .excess debit to cog}"- an.Q_ fuel •consumption. f564 A,d - (b) The non-inclusion· df one month's revenue in resoect of bulk supplies etc. Was bona fide caused by switching over to a different basis of accounting which the employer could lawfully have done and the Tribunal was not justified in adding back the amount to the profits as it had done. [566 BJ· (c) In applying the Full Bench Formula the employers cannot be charged \Vith any notional profits which they should have made, although the formula itself is -notional
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.