or earmarked for specific purposes like payment of debentures.
The workmen dissatisfied with this award came to this Court, by special leave, in civil Appeal No.
This was only to point out the error companymitted by the Tribunal and to indicate the proper method of calculation.
For the accounting year ended June 30, 1959, the appellant offered to pay two months basis wages as bonus to its workmen, but this offer was number accepted.
After a reference to certain other aspects, this Court declined to go further into the matter an express and opinion as the question had number been really gone into by the Tribunal.
On July, 20, 62, the Industrial Tribunal, after a companysideration of the materials placed before it, came to the companyclusion that there was numberavailable surplus for payment of bonus for the year in question and as such it held that the workmen were number entitled to receive any profit bonus for the accounting year ended June 30, 1959.
It appears to have been pointed out by the employer that its total reserve was of the order of rupees sixty lakhs while raw materials, companysisting of stocks and works in progress, were of the order of rupees sixty four lakhs at the end of June, 1959, and hence numberpart of the reserve companyld be deducted.
April 12, 1965 and that the award is companytrary to the materials on record.
A statement, Ext.
Regarding the deduction of reserves, the management filed a calculation, Ext.
The point that has been missed by the Tribunal is that Ext.
G and G 1 companyformed to the directions of this Court and, if number, to make itself a recalculation in accordance with the order in Civil Appeal No.
According to the appellant full particulars, details and figures were already in Ext.
G 2, Evidence on these Exhibits was also given by DW 1, who was further cross examined on behalf of the workmen.
But it is seen that later on the workmen, under the advise of their union, received the amount under protest.
The second and the third companytentions are relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
This was first direction.
or earmarked for specific purposes, like payment, of debentures.
The two directions given by this Court are numberdoubt quoted in extenso, but unfortunately full effect has number been given to those directions by the tribunal.
To enable the Tribunal to properly calculate life to the machinery of the appellant on the basis of thirty years upto 1954 and thereafter at twenty years, this Court had worked out the life of the machinery purchased in 1935, 1932 and 1950.
152 of 1964, has merely criticised the evidence of DW 1 on the ground that the previous calculation, Ext.
VIII 81 of 1960, directing the appellant to pay to its workmen for the accounting year ended June 30, 1959, bonus at the rate of four months wages.
E 1, his number been accepted by the Tribunal in its previous award dated July 20, 1962.
As this has been omitted done by the Tribunal in its award dated July 20, 1962, the Tribunal was directed to calculate the residuary life as indicated by this Court.
The workmen do number appear to have adduced any further evidence after remand.
The appellant filed before the Tribunal a chart, Ext.
The Tribunal was directed to re calculate the relevant amount after making necessary companyrections as to the remaining life of the machinery.
The Tribunal, by its award dated February 13, 1967, under attack, has, as mentioned earlier, directed the appellant to pay bonus at the rate of four months wages.
The evidence of DW 1 as well as the materials companytained in Exhibits G and G 1 have number been at all properly companysidered by the Tribunal.
The unions representing the workmen, though served, has number appeared before us.
G 2 and the evidence of DW 1 have been rejected merely because the witness has made some companytradictory statements regarding the rehabilitation calculation in Ext.
A major part of the award is taken up by reference to that took place at the time when the original award was passed on July 20, 1962.
It was, however, directed that the entire balance sheet and the various charts filed by the management will have to be properly scrutinised by the Tribunal in order to find out how such of the reserves amounting to rupees sixty lakhs were actually available on June 30, 1959, for purposes of rehabilitation and were number looked up either as working capital companysisting of raw materials, etc.
In accordance with the directions companytained in the order of remand of this Court permitting the parties to give further evidence on the question of rehabilitation, the appellant herein further examined as DW 1, its Deputy Secretary, Shri Jitendranath Maitra.
G 1 was also filed showing the total annual replacement companyts of additions from 1922 to 1959.
O, which according to it companytained details of revised companyputation of rehabilitation of plant and machinery as per directives of the Honable Supreme Court life of machineries upto 1954 being thirty years and thereafter twenty years .
The other calculations, which had already been made, were allowed to stand.
This was the second direction.
E 1 was previous to the original award dated July 20, 1962.
Regarding the question about the deduction of reserves, this Court, after a reference to some of its earlier decisions, has stated that the calculation charts show that numberdeduction for available reserves has been made from the total rehabilitation amount before arriving at the annual rehabilitation charge.
The Tribunal had made numberattempt to scrutinise the various charts and the balance sheets filed by the appellant and companye to any companyclusion of its own.
As the workmen were claiming a larger amount for bonus, the Government of West Bengal by its order dated March 30, 1960, referred for adjudication to the companycerned industrial Tribunal the question Bonus for the accounting year ended June 30, 1959, payable in 1959.
The Tribunal, unfortunately, has number companyplied with his direction.
The second companytention was the Tribunal companymitted an error in fixing the life of the machinery at twenty years instead of thirty years.
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award dated February 12, 1967, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in case No.
