This Appeal by aluminium Corporation of India, Ltd., Calcutta, filed by special leave, is directed against an award of the fourth industrial tribunal, West Begal, in an industrial dispute relating to payment of bonus for the year 1958 59 to the workmen employed in the appellants factory at J.E. Nagar, and the head office at Calcutta.
1 i was filed on behalf of the appellant company showing the various reserves which were available throughout the year 1958 59.
Obviously, a multiplier companyld have been calculated on the bails of this quotations but it companyld number possibly be applied to work out the replacement companyt of the remaining 30 per cent of the machines, because their original companyt was number available.
The appellant had granted voluntarily bonus equivalent to one sixteenth of the annual basic wages.
The tribunal calculated the surplus available for distribution of bonus on the basis of the Fall Bench formula approved by this Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies, Ltd. Dwarka Cement Works , and Ors.
No attempt was made to produce witnesses who sent the quotations.
Only one witness was examined who stated that he had obtained quotations from various firms for the various machines and plants.
44 lakhs out of the depreciation reserve and some other reserves were utilized as working capital during this year.
Quotations were obtained for only 70 per cent of the machines.
10,00,000, which was obtained by Issue of mortgage debentures after giving security of the property and fixed assets of the appellant company, should be treated as an amount utilized in the acquisition of fixed assets but we are number prepared to accept this submission.
35,00,000, which we have treated as a resource available for Investment la fixed assets, was obtained from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, and a companyy of the mortgage bond executed filed before us shows that the loan was specifically for expansion and investment in fixed assets.
v. their workmen 1059 1 L.L.J. 644.
Figures based on such registers companyld number obviously have been accepted by the tribunal.
The quotations, on the admission of the witness, himself, were some of them in writing and some obtained on telephone.
A statement Ex.
One is that the tribunal wrongly rejected the claim of the appellant for return on reserves employed as working capital, and the second is that the tribunal was also wrong in disallowing rehabilitation charges in respect of buildings and machinery of the appellant.
Similarly, the evidence given to prove the replacement companyt of the various machines was also highly unsatisfactory.
This claim was rejected by the tribunal on the view that the evidence given on behalf of the appellant was very unsatisfactory.
In the appeal, the award is challenged on only two grounds.
The workmen were represented by the Aluminium Mazdoor Union, J.K. Nagar, district Bardwan, and the Aluminium Corporation Calcutta Employees Association, Calcutta.
Only general statements were made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant stating that amounts to the value of about Rs.
