From the Judgment and Order dated the 26th March, 1968 of the Patna High Court in C. W. J. C. Nos.
The management agree to distribute this amount as early as possible.
The remaining portion of the award which disallowed the deduction of the said sum from the gross profits was maintained.
35,682/ in respect of development reserve.
The proportionate development reserve for the year 1961 62 was Rs.
In the result of respondents petition was allowed and the appellants petition dismissed.
23,455/ on account of development rebate allowable under the Income tax Act, 1961 and the third one related to a sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The Management of Sijua Jherriah Electric Supply Company Ltd. the respondents had initially offered only 4 per cent.
18,086/ representing the rebate payable to the companysumers under paragraph II i of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Electricity Supply Act the second one related to a sum of Rs.
The dispute between the companypany and the workmen, as already stated, arose in respect of the permissible additions and deductions to be made to the profits for the purpose of ascertaining the bonus payable to the workmen under the provisions of the Bonus Act.
bonus to all the employees of its establishment because the allocable surplus which was available was less than 4 per cent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
23,455/ deducted under the Income tax Act, 1961, as development rebate.
The balance sheet of the companypany for the year ending March 31, 1965, showing the profit and loss account was duly published, and there was a companytroversy between the companypany and its workmen as regards three items mentioned in the profit and loss account which were also the subject matter of the reference.
As regards item b i of the reference relating to the sum of Rs.
34,492/ .
4,864/ for the year 1962 63 Rs.
Subsequently, having regard to the decision of the Madras High Court it revised the calculations of allocable surplus and offered to distribute to its employees under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 hereinafter termed the Bonus Act , a sum of Rs.
The first item related to a sum of Rs.
2446 2447 of 1967.
121 and 137 of 1967.
23,455/ shown as development rebate, it held that the portion of the award which directed that it should be added back to the net profits to calculate the gross profits under clause 2 d of the Second Schedule of the Bonus Act was also wrong and it was accordingly quashed.
In respect of the award on clause b ii of the reference it maintained the award of the Tribunal.
18,086/ for calculating the gross profits was wrong and it was accordingly quashed.
The workmen Appellants refused to accept this amount as the management had failed to furnish the details or the basis of companyputing the amount which was being offered to them.
B. N. Sinha and A. K. Nag, for the appellants.
higher bonus for the year 1964 65.
The High Court which heard both these petitions together came to the 76 4 companyclusion that the decision of the Tribunal on item 1 a of the reference directing the respondents to add back Rs.
7 62 Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General of India, Alok Kumar Verma and B. P. Singh, for respondent No.
By a writ petition the respondents challenged the validity of the award which was against them, and the workmen by a separate writ petition companytested the validity of the award which was against them.
C. Prasad, for respondent No.
Against the aforesaid decision, these appeals are by certificate granted by the High Court.
Both the parties agree to refer to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication the following points of difference in respect of calculation of available surplus for the year 1964 65 to settle the issue of payment of bonus for that year.
