VOLTAS LIMITED versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 09-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
J67 
workers under s. 2(1), s. 79 should not be applied to 
Ig6o 
them as they can absent themselves whenever they Shri Biidhichalid 
like. In this very case it is said that the respondents 
s1mma 
remained absent for a longer period than that provid-
v. 
ed in the Act and therefore they do not need any Ffrst Civil Judge 
leave. This argument has in our opinion no force. Nagpur & Others 
The leave provided under s. 79 arises as a matter of 
n·a,,chou J. 
right when a worker has put in a minimum number of 
working days and he is entitled to it. The fact that 
the respondents remained absent for a longer period 
·than that provided in s. 79 has no bearing on their 
right to leave, for if they so remained absent for such 
period they lost.the wages for that period which they 
would have otherwise earned. That however does 
not mean that they Rhould also lose the leave earned 
by them under s. 79. In the circumstances they were 
entitled under s. 79 of the Factories Act to pro portio-
nate leave during the subsequent calendar year if 
they had worked during the previous calendar year 
for 240 days or more in the factory. There is nothing 
on the record to show that this was not so. 
In the 
circumstances the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed 
with costs. One set of hearing costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
VOLTAS LIMITED 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. C. Das GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute--Bonus-Contribution to political fund, if 
can be deducted from gross profit-Extraneous income-Nature of-
Salesmen and apprentices, if entitled to bonus. 
The question in this appeal was whether the Tribunal was 
wrong in not allowing the amount paid to a political fund which 
wa~ perm1ss1blc. as an ite~ of expense and for disallowing tbe 
claun for deduction of certain amounts as extraneous income and 
\Vhether the sal('smen and apprentices were entitled to bonus. 
Ig6o 
D1ce1nber 9. 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
, 96o 
Held, that though the law or. the rules of the company per-
mitted the employer to pay amounts as donations to political 
Voltos Limited funds, it was not a proper expense to be deducted when workinir 
v.. 
out the available surplus in the light of the Full Bench formula. 
Its Wo,kmen 
Held, further, that neither the profits from transactions 
Wanchoo ]. 
which were carried out in the normal course of business, nor the 
commission earned on transactions entered directly with foreign 
manufacturers, where the workmen had serviced the goods and 
did other work which brought such business to the employer, 
could be allowed as extraneous income. 
Held, also that the salesmen who were given commission Oil 
sales had already taken a share in the profits of the company Oil 
a fair basis and there was no justification for granting them fur-
ther bonus out of the available surplus of profits.· 
That the apprentices hardly contributed to the profits of th·' 
company. Thus they were not entitled to any bonus. 
The Associat~d Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 
(1959] S.C.I{. 925 and The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workme" 
and Ors., [1960] I S.C.R. r, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
153 and 154 of 1960. 
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated 
February 5, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, 
in Reference (LT.) No. 212 of 1958. 
S. D. Vimadalal, S. N. Andley and J.B. Dadachanji, 
for the appellant in C. A. No. 153/60 and Respondent 
in C.A. No. 154/60. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and 
Janardan Sharma, for the respondents in C.A. No. 153/ 
60 and Appellants in C.A. No. 154/60. 
1960. December 9. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
WANCHOO,· J.-The only question raised in these 
two appeals by special leave is about the quantum of 
bonus to be paid to the workmen (hereinafter called 
the respondents) by Voltas Limited (hereinafter called 
the appellant) for the financial year 1956-57. The 
dispute between the parties was referred to the adjudi:-
cation of the industrial tribunal, Bombay. The appel.-
laht, it appears, .had already paid 4} months' basic 
wages as bonus for the relevant year but the respon-
dents claimed it at the rate of six months' basic wagf>S 
subject to the minimum of Rs. 250 per employee. 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
169 
The tribunal went into the figures and after making 
the relevant ca.lculations came to the conclusion that 
the a.vailable surplus worked out accordi

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