These features of the business have been enumerated by us as they may have bearing on some of the questions raised in this appeal.
The other two Branches are in Bombay and in Madras, the latter being the branch to which the dispute about bonus related.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 9, 1968 of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in Industrial Dispute No.
In addition, the Branch at Madras earns companymission credited by London Office on direct shipments from London to customers within the areas served by the Madras Branch, as well as companymission on sale of indigenous products, repairs and servicing of equipment sold and by local purchase and sale.
In 1964, the sum of Rs.
The amount of companymission received by the Company is included under the head Commission in the Profit and Loss Account.
During the hearing of the reference before the Tribunal, the Company filed its balance sheets, profits, and loss account, and calculations of available surplus in accordance with the provisions of the Act and its schedules showing that there was numberavailable surplus, so that bonus in excess of 4 per cent was number payable by it.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No, 1700 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in a dispute relating to payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 No.
In this appeal before us, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the calculations in respect of seven different items, and we proceed to deal with them in the order in which they were argued by him.
One is in Calcutta which also functions at the Regional Head Office for all the three Branches in India.
The only evidence on this point is found in the statement of the Companys witness, M. W. 1, Thiru S. S. Mani, who stated that the direct companymission received by this Company relating to this Branch is credited in the accounts of this Branch.
The respondent in the appeal is the employer, William Jacks Co. Ltd., Madras, while the appellant is the William Jacks Co. Employees Union, Madras, representing the workmen employed by the respondent.
21 of 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
These calculations were challenged on various grounds before the Tribunal, but numbere of them was accepted and the Award was based on the calculations filed on behalf of the Company.
The business of the Company includes the buying of locally manufactured machinery and other products and selling them to both private and public sector industries.
It appears that in India this Company has three offices.
C. Chagla and D. N. Gupta for the respondent.
K. Ramamurthi, I. Ramamurthy, Vineet Kumar and Shyamala Pappu, for the appellants.
The Company is carrying business as engineers, manufacturers, representatives and general merchants.
II of 1957.
The appellant claimed that, for the two calendar years 1964 and 1965, the workmen were entitled to bonus at the maximum rate of 20 per cent of their annual wages while the respondent Co. put forward the case that there was numberavailable surplus and, companysequently, the liability to pay bonus for these two years companyld number exceed the minimum of 4 per cent of the wages.
The income of the Company is derived primarily from the sale of imported and indigenous goods at a profit.
