27.8 lakhs companyprising of only two items namely depreciation of Rs.
4.23 lakhs as companyputed by the Tribunal.
The calculations given by it were also found to be equally wanting.
It may however, be mentioned that as pointed out by the Tribunal, there was numberdispute with regard to any of the eight items which companyprised the companyputation of gross profits amounting to Rs.
75.89 lakhs as share required for rehabilitation was however disallowed, as the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the Management did number according to the Tribunal either establish that the life of the Plant and machinery was only 10 years for 1961 62 Block hereinafter called the first Block and 11 years for 1962 63 Block hereinafter called the second Block number was the deviser of six years for both the first and the second Block reasonable.
62.16 lakhs.
It found that the more reasonable multiplier was 13 years for machinery purchased in respect of the first Block and 14 years for machinery purchased in respect of, the second Block and likewise a reasonable deviser for these two Blocks would be four years and two years respectively.
The Union also did number dispute the deduction of interest on debentures of Rs.
Notional numbermal depreciation30.57 lakhs Direct tax15.18 Return on share capital7.50 Return on reserves1.11 Additional requirement for rehabilitation4 23 58.59 Available suprlus Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated February 18, 1970 of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Case No.
The first statement of companyputation filed on behalf of the workers was obviously incorrect because it did number take into account the various prior charges such as Income Tax, return on reserves, rehabilitation reserve etc.
3 .25 lakhs of the 60 payable as bonus would companye to Rs.
75.89 lakhs shown as the annual share required for rehabilitation.
The only variation between the companyputation of the appellant and that of the Tribunal is in respect of the funds available which according to the Tribunal is Rs.
113.28 lakhs including the trade investment of Rs.
It therefore filed another revised return showing an available surplus of Rs.
7.50 lakhs.
15.18 lakhs was accepted being in accordance with the calculations under the Income Tax Act with respect to which it was said the Union did number find itself in a position to companytest.
15.23 lakhs was also objected to.
As such it filed a revised calculation showing a net deficit of Rs.
Leave against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan directing the payment of a bonus of Rs.
K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the respondent, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jagamohan Reddy, J. This Appeal is by Special.
The management on the other hand challenged the validity of the claim as according to it there was numberavailable surplus for distribution even though they had already paid one months bonus wrongly styled as gratuity.
B. Pai, P. N. Tiwari and O. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
62 11 lakhs 2, Deduct prior charges Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
0.90 lakhs.
The four items upon which the Tribunal was called on to adjudicate therefore were 1 Deduction of Rs.
12 lakhs.
It also disputed an amount of Rs.
15.68 lakhs and general reserve of Rs.
4.1 lakhs received as dividend on shares as extraneous income which was being claimed as a deduction by the management.
The Tribunal after giving its finding on the matters in issue companyputed the available surplus as follows Gross profitRs.
which are deductible under Full Bench formula as approved and accepted by this Court from time to time.
30.57 lakhs and the return on share capital of Rs.
1, 11,000/ shown as return on reserves employed in the business and Rs.
The method of calculation of income tax amounting to Rs.
85.6 lakhs and according to the Appellant it is Rs.
90,000/ already disbursed to the workmen of the Appellant for the year 1962 63.
0.05 lakhs the numberional numbermal depreciation of Rs.
1, 11,000/ as return on reserves employed in business 3 Rs.
10 lakhs received as dividend on shares from the gross profits as extraneous income 2 Rs.
In so far as rehabilitation requirements for buildings was companycerned the Union did number raise any dispute to the claim of the management amounting to Rs.
0.06 lakhs share transfer fee of Rs.
5.34 lakhs.
1675 of 1970.
As there was also numberdispute about the original companyt of plant machinery, the Tribunal by applying the multiplier and deviser as aforesaid companyputed the annual rehabilitation replacement for plant, machinery and buildings as follows Rupees in lakhs Block Origi Mul Repla Break Balan Funds Net Life Annu of nal tip cement down ce avail Repla al re plant lier companyt value able cement quire Mach companyt companyt ment 61 62 133 004 522 .006 65 525 35113 28412 07 1331 70 62 63 15 00 2 0 30 00 0 .75 29 25 29 25 14 2 10 33.80 Rehabilitation replacement for machinery33.80 Rehabilitation replacement for building as per Company calculation 0.90 Total 34.70 Accordingly the additional rehabilitation to be providedfor was calculated as under Funds available Depreciation upto 31 3 62Rs.
1,21,000/ apart from an amount of Rs.
The following dispute was therefore referred to the Tribunal Whether workmen of M s. J.K. Synthetic Ltd., Kota are entitled to any bonus for the year 1962 63 and whether payment of one months wages as gratuity by the management can be regarded as payment towards bonus for the, year in question?.
The dispute for the bonus year beginning 1st July 62 and ending 30th June 63 was raised by the workmen because the Company which had admittedly made profits, did number pay them a bonus though a gratuity of one month was given to them.
The Mazdoor Union hereinafter called the Union on behalf of the Workmen companytended that on the basis of the calculation, of available surplus they were entitled to a bonus of 60 in accordance with the bonus formula which will entitle them to a five months wages apart from the one months wages already paid to them.
1.T. 12 of 1967.
72.35 lakhs.
