Indeed the Full Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal evolved the abovequoted formula with a view to dispensing social justice between the various parties companycerned.
Whereas the Industrial Court declined to grant the respondent any relief because the working of the appellant during the year had resulted in a loss, the Labour Appellate Tribunal made a special case for the respondent in spite of its companycurrence with that finding of the Industrial Court.
On an appeal taken by the appellant to the Industrial Court Textiles and Hosiery , Kanpur, the Industrial Court accepted the companytention of the appellant, allowed the appeal and set aside the award.
This case was negatived by the Industrial Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal, both of whom held that the working of the appellant during the year 1949 had resulted in a loss.
Appeal by Special Leave granted by the Supreme Court of India by its Order dated the 21st of May, 1951, from the Judgment and Order dated the 19th February, 1951, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Allahabad in Appeal No.
10,01,871 13 5 being the amount of reserve transferred from the investment account was also brought in.
5,02,563 1 10 during the year 1949 and also that the dividend of 243/4 per cent.
2,50,000 being the excess reserve for taxation was written back and a sum of Rs.
The appellant filed this appeal against that decision after obtaining special leave from this Court.
An aggregate sum of Rs.
As a result of all these circumstances the appellant suffered a trading loss of Rs.
The trading loss was deducted from this amount leaving a credit balance of Rs.
The Conciliation Board by a majority decision repelled the companytention of the appellant and awarded the payment of bonus at annas 4 per rupee.
It is significant to observe that this principle was accepted by the Labour Appellate Tribunal itself.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal did number accept the companytention of the respondent that bonus should be linked to dividends number did it rest its decision on the respondent having a right, title and interest in the reserves and the undistributed profits of the appellant.
The balance which had been brought forward from the previous year was added thereto and a dividend of 243/4 per cent.
136 of 1950.
Linking of bonus to dividend would obviously create difficulties.
pondent.
Both the Industrial Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal found as a fact that there was a trading loss of Rs.
During the year 1949 the selling rates for cloth and yarn were companytrolled by the Government and were approximately 4 per cent.
The respondent thereupon appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal which substantially agreed with the Industrial Court on questions of fact as well as the general position in law but imported companysiderations of social justice and treating this as a special case where social justice would demand that labour should have bonus for the year where for that very year capital had number only a reasonable return but much in excess of that , allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay to the workmen bonus at the rate of annas 4 per rupee within six weeks of their decision.
135 of 1951.
It paid 24 3 per cent.
to the ordinary shareholders was distributed after transferring the aggregate sum of Rs.
dividend on ordinary shares, being the maximum that companyld be paid under the Public Companies Limitation of Dividend Ordinance of 1948 and also paid to the workers their full share of bonus at annas 4 in a rupee of their basic earnings.
A sum of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the 4th May, 1950, the Secretary of the respondent Union petitioned to the Provincial Conciliation Officer Textile that there was more production in 1949 than in 1948, that there was numberreason to hold that the profit in 1949 was less than in the previous year and that the rate of bonus was wrongly reduced and asked that bonus for 1949 should also be paid at the rate of annas 4 per rupee.
was paid to the ordinary shareholders.
C. Isaacs 0.
5,02,563 1 10.
The industrial dispute which thus arose was referred for enquiry and recording of an award to the Regional Conciliation Board Textile , Kanpur.
C. Isaacs Mohan Lal Saxena and C. P. Lal, with him for the Intervener State of U.P. 1954.
There was a strike in the month of October and the mills were closed for nearly a month.
The basic wages were increased from the 1st December, 1948, by order of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the total wages paid were therefore higher than those in the previous year.
7,49,308 11 7 and that amount was shown as the profit for the year 1949 in the balance sheet for that year.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India J. B. Dadachanji, Rajinder Narain and Devinder Swarup, with him for the appellant.
During the year 1948 the appellant made a profit of Rs.
Further the management were unable to secure companyton which resulted in the curtailment of the working hours.
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal with special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in a dispute regarding the workers claim for bonus.
12,51,871 13 5 from the reserves.
The appellant also paid ex gratia to the workmen bonus at the rate of annas 2 per rupee of their basic earnings making it clear by their numberification dated the 7th April, 1950, that the directors had sanctioned the payment at that rate in spite of the appellant having suffered a trading loss for the year, that it was being paid entirely at the discretion of the appellant and was number related to or companynected with any companytract of employment of any worker.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Rajin der Narain and Devinder Swarup, with him for the Intervener All India Organisation of Industrial Employers .
below those obtained in 1948.
November 19.
There was moreover indiscipline amongst the workers and production suffered.
P. Lal, with him for the res.
12,51,871 13 5 was thus brought into the balance sheet by these two transfers.
11,97,648 11 9.
