This award was passed on March 4, 1955.
It is against this decision of the appellate tribunal that the present appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant before this Court.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was in due companyrse taken up by the Industrial Tribunal at Madras the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai having been in the meanwhile abolished and the appeals on its file transferred to the Industrial Tribunal at Madras.
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated September 29, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in Appeal Mad.
96 of 1956, arising out of the Award dated April 9, 1956, of the Industrial Tribunal.,
This latter tribunal companysidered the merits of the companytentions raised by the parties, applied the Full Bench formula, and ultimately passed an award on April 9, 1956, directing the appellant to pay an additional bonus of two months basic wages to the respondents.
The special bench of the appellate tribunal then heard the group of appeals including the appeal preferred by the appellant.
96 of 1956.
56 of 1955, to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and companytended that numberadditional bonus should have been awarded in the absence of proof of an excess of clear profits over reasonable return it was the appellants case that it was only from excess of clear profits over reasonable return as defined by the Act that bonus can be legitimately awarded to the respondents.
Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal, No.
Thereupon the appellant preferred another appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and it was numbered as Appeal Madras No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
23 of 1958.
February, 22.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, and Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
The respondents, however, claimed additional bonus and this claim was one of the items of dispute referred to the tribunal for its adjudication.
Madras, in I.D. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The appellant, the Tinnevelli Tuticorin Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Tuticorin, is an electric supply undertaking, and it carries on its business as a licensee under the State Government of Madras subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 Act 9 of 1910 and the Electric Supply Act, 1948 Act 54 of 1948 .
The appellants workmen hereinafter called the respondents made several demands in respect of their terms of employment.
The appellants case was that, having regard to the scheme, object and the background of the Act under which the appellant was carrying on its busi ness, the respondents claim for additional bonus was wholly misconceived.
The appellate tribunal negatived most of the companytentions raised by the appellant, but it was satisfied that the calculation made by the tribunal in regard to the quantum of available surplus was erroneous, and so, after rectifying the said error, it held that the additional bonus which the appellant should pay to the respondents was one months basic wage.
52 of 1954.
S. Venkataraman and M. K. Ramamurth, for the respondents.
Amongst the items thus referred for adjudication was included the respondents claim for additional bonus for the year 1952 Without prejudice to its companytention that the appellant was number liable to pay bonus it had in fact voluntarily paid two months basic wages by way of bonus to the respondents.
These demands gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred by the Madras Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai for adjudication under s. 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 XIV of 1947 .
