In the accounting year 1964 the appellant had 60 workmen on its roll.
2,06,060 and 2 Rs.
48,732 and Rs.
The Tribunal accepted the workmens calculations and allowed bonus at the maximum rate of 20 as demanded by them.
70,589 as return at 8.5 on the capital of Rs.
By a letter dated September 14, 1965 the workmen made a demand for 20 bonus on their total wages for the year 1964, that being the maximum allowable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
customs duty, the profit loss account produced by the appellant before the Tribunal showed the refund amount of Rs.
On the expenditure side, the appellant had debited sundry amounts, such as excise duty, interest rent etc.
On the credit side also, the amounts would be credited number when they were received but as and when they accrued due.
The appellant submitted that according to its calculations based on the said balance sheet and the profit and loss account, the year 1964 ended in loss and therefore its liability to pay bonus companyld only be at the rate of 4.
By the said statement of claim they also called upon the appellant to produce its duly audited and authenticated statement of accounts, their aforesaid calculations being based on a kachha statement of accounts furnished to them by the appellant.
In its calculations filed as Annexure B to its written statement the appellant showed a net profit of Rs.
The Tribunal accepted the figure of Rs.
29,269 respectively.
In these calculations the workmen calculated return at 8.5 on a capital shown at Rs.
To their statement of claim the workmen filed an annexure showing certain calculations according to which the allocable surplus and available surplus came to Rs.
8,30,460.
8,30,460.
2,06,060 and Rs.
3,52,457 only and a return at 8.5 on that amount only was claimable as a prior charge.
8,30,460.
2,06,060 was deductable from the net profit as that amount represented customs duty which though refundable was number in fact received during the year from the customs authorities and 2 that the appellants capital at the companymencement of the accounting year was Rs.
As regards the amount of.
1,90,617 as the net profit for the year but disallowed the deductions of Rs.
In its written statement the appellant made a grievance that the workmen had rushed to the companyrt basing their demand on a kachha balance sheet and profit and loss account supplied to them and that the appellant was therefore filing therewith as annexure A a duly audited balance sheet and profit and loss account.
1,90,617 from which, however, it sought to deduct the two sums in dispute, namely, 1 Rs.
70,589 rejecting the appellants companytentions 1 that the said sum of Rs.
Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed the writ petition which the High Court dismissed summarily presumably on the ground that the said award did number companytain, any error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Counsel for the appellant admitted that the appellant was maintaining its accounts on mercantile system and therefore amounts would be credited and debited as they accrued due and number when they were actually received or expended.
5,43,774.
As regards capital, the Tribunal accepted the workmens companytention that it came to Rs.
The amounts debited on the expenditure side, therefore, must have been so done as and when they became due and number when they were actually paid.
Conciliation between the parties having failed, the workmen referred the dispute to the Industrial Court for arbitration under Section 73 A of the Act.
The appellants reply to the said demand was that it was liable to pay bonus at the rate of 4 only.
The appellant manufactures silk and art silk cloth and is a proprietary companycern owned by Macks Hard P. Ltd. who purchased it in 1962.
M. Shelat, J. This appeal founded on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay is against its order of dismissal in limine of the appellants writ petition against the award dated October 22, 1966 passed by the Industrial Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, XI of 1947.
