218 and 219 of 1956.
That is why the tribunal awarded three months bonus to the workmen.
In the appeal preferred against the order passed by the appellate tribunal refusing to review its decision, it has been urged before us by the learned companynsel for the appellants that the appellate tribunal was in error in holding that it had numberjurisdiction to review its decision under 0.
Case No.
In these appeals the appellants challenged the findings made by the tribunal against them and urged that bonus was number payable during the relevant year.
Against this decision the appellants preferred two appeals Nos.
1,75,000 was adequate.
It also came to the companyclusion that for the year in question there was a surplus of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the decision date December 7, 1953, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Madras, in Misc.
2,57,496.
4,43,927.
2,87,676 against which the workmens claim for bonus was justified.
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On the other hand, the appellants companytended that the two mills were two different units and the claims for bonus made by the workmen against them should number be companysidered together.
217 of 1956.
The appellate tribunal hold that it had numberpower of review and that, even if it bad such a power, numbercase had been made out for the exercise of such power because there was numbermistake apparent on the face of the record which companyld number have been discovered whet the order was made in the presence of the parties.
Against the order dismissing their appeals, the appellants have preferred to this Court by special leave the present Civil Appeals Nos.
168 of 1952, and in this appeal they claimed a larger bonus than what had been awarded by the tribunal below.
According to the appellants, during the relevant year there was a trading loss and as such numberbonus was payable to the workers.
Against this decision, the appellants have preferred to this Court by special leave the present Civil A peal No.
217 of 1956.
Both the disputes were in respect of bonus claimed by the workmen for the year 1950 The workmen claimed bonus for the year 1950 51 on the allegation that the two mills companystituted one unit and had made profits during the relevant year.
In the result, the appeals preferred by the appellants as well as the respondents failed and were dismissed by the appellate tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
133 and 134 of 1952 to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Madras.
In appeals Nos.
The claim made by the appellants in respect of various deductions was examined by the appellate tribunal and deductions were substantially, disallowed in respect of three items.
Case No.
26 of 1951, was between the management and workers of the Thiakesar Alai Manapparai.
The Industrial Tribunal rejected the pleas raised by the appellants and held that the two mills formed part of the same unit.
218 and 219 of 1956, the main point which has been urged before us on behalf of the appellants is that the appellate tribunal erred in law in disallowing the appellants claim in respect of depreciation debited by the appellants to the extent of Rs.
The workmen also preferred an appeal, No.
V. Vishwanatha Sastri and S. Subramanian for the appellants.
III C 387 of 1953 Review on the ground that the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was patently erroneous inasmuch as there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record which should be companyrected under the appellate tribunals powers of review.
The appellants had also preferred an application for review before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Misc.
November 5.
24 and 26 of 1951 between the appellants and their workmen.
S. K. Sastri, for the respondents.
Dispute No.
111 C. 387 of 1953.
24 of 1951 had arisen between the management and workers of the Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai, whereas dispute No.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. These three appeals arise out of two industrial disputes Nos.
