PETLAD TURKEY RED DYE WORKS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION
LAWS(SC)-1960-2-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 03,1960

PETLAD TURKEY RED DYE WORKS COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BAREILLY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1971-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT KAUR VS. VANGUARD INSURANCE CO LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1969-4-15] [REFERRED]
LEONARD BIERMANS WORKERS UNION VS. SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-1961-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAN MAC GREGOR SMITH FORGIE VS. FIRST INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL W B [LAWS(CAL)-1962-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1967-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
DARJEELING COMMERCIAL CO LTD VS. PANDAM TEA CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1981-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT DYE CHEM INDUSTRIES VS. BONZANZA DURGS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1998-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP KUMAR GANGULY VS. ANINDITA GANGULY [LAWS(CAL)-1992-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
V A NAIR VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO [LAWS(BOM)-1971-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY BANGALORE VS. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY KARMIKARA SANGHA BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2005-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
GORDON WOODROFFE WORKERS AND STAFF UNION VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2000-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. KOUSALYA KAWAR [LAWS(MAD)-2001-2-95] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE MATTER OF THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OF ROUSSEL INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-1998-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYQ VS. MALATI SETHI [LAWS(ORI)-2008-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL KAGAZKAL MAZDOOR UNION VS. TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1963-4-33] [REFERED TO]
METAL BOX COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED STEEL MAZDOOR SABHA BOMBAY INDIAN OXYGEN LIMITED KAPRA MAZDOOR EKTA UNION ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO LTD VS. THEIR WORKMEN:THEIR WORKMEN:THEIR WORKMEN:THEIR WORKMEN:THEIR WORKMEN:THEIR WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1968-8-43] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. BHARAT HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. KULJINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
ALUMINIUM CORPORATION VS. THEIR WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1963-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE POSTAL AND R.M.S. CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. THE WORKMEN OF THE POSTAL AND R.M.S., CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1962-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
KANDRU MAJHI VS. BUDHESWAR MAJHI [LAWS(CAL)-1970-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND VARDHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-199] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR TAYA VS. KAUSHALYA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
VOKKALIGARA SANGHA VS. P.RAJU [LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Das Gupta, J. - (1.)The only point raised in this appeal by the employer, Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Limited, Petlad, against the award of an Industrial Tribunal of a sum Rs. 9,839 equivalent to one month's basic wages is as regards the correctness of the disallowance, in the process of ascertaining the available surplus, of a claim of 4 per cent interest on Rs. 2,27,000 standing and the deprecation fund said to have been used as working capital. If this claim was allowed and the amount claimed deducted as a prior charge no surplus would remain so that the employees would not be entitled to any bonus. The Industrial Tribunal was of opinion that even if the depreciation reserve was utilised as working capital no return thereon was allowable for the purposes of deciding on the amount to be deducted as prior charges in applying the Full Bench Formal. In this view it was clearly wrong. Numerous decisions of this Court make it abundantly clear that any portion of the reserve actually utilized as working capital in the year under consideration should be treated as entitled to a reasonable rate of return and the amount thus ascertained deducted as a prior charge in ascertaining the available surplus. There in no reason whatsoever for making an exception in this respect as regards depreciation reserves.
(2.)The question remains, however, whether this amount of Rs. 2,27,000/- in the depreciation fund was actually used as working capital. The Tribunal did not think it necessary to consider this question as in its view if this entire amount has been utilised as working capital no return was allowable. If on the materials on the record it was possible to reach a conclusion that any reserve or any portion of it was used as working capital during the period under consideration we would have thought fit to calculate the amount allowable as return thereupon and deducted it from the amount ascertained as surplus by the Industrial Tribunal. On an examination of the record, however, we cannot discover any such material. All that we have is that the employer company in its written statement claimed interest on reserves as working capital at Rs. 32,000 the rate of return being mentioned as 4 per cent. It was not mentioned therein in so many words that the depreciation fund was part of the reserves employed as working capital. It is claimed however that such an averment was implicit in the claim of Rs. 32,000 as the amount allowable as return on reserves employed as working capital,. Assuming that this is so it still remained the duty of the Company to prove that any portion of the depreciation fund was actually utilised as working capital. It was suggested before us that this averment by implication that the depreciation fund was also used as working capital was not challenged by the workers. This suggestion is obviously incorrect. We find that in Exhibit U/1 a statement submitted on behalf of the workers containing calculations for the available surplus, Rs. 3,000 was shown as the amount deductible on working capital at 2 per cent. That is, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 out of the reserves was stated to have been used as working capital. The employer's statement in Exhibit C/3 dated July 12, 1957, shows a deduction of "Interest at 4 per cent on Reserves employed as working capital - Rs. 32, 000". A similar claim is made in Ex. C/4, an alternative statement filed on behalf of the employer on July 12, 1957. The workmen also filed a statement showing calculations of bonus made by them on the same date, i.e., July 12, 1957. This is marked as Ex. U/3. According to this, return at the rate of 4 per cent on working capital of Rs. 1,66,000 while according to workmen, the reserves used as working capital was stated to be Rs.1,66,000 while according to the employer this amount was no less than 8 lakhs. It is quite clear therefore that the workmen had at no stage admitted either expressly or by implication the employer's claim that any portion of the depreciation fund was utilized as working reserve.
(3.)On behalf of the appellant it was strenuously contended, however, that the balance-sheet of the Company which was placed before the Industrial Tribunal will itself show that the entire sum of depreciation fund of Rs. 2,27,000 was used as working capital. The balance-sheet does show a sum of Rs. 2,27,000 as the depreciation fund. Assuming for the purposes of the present case that this was the actual sum standing in the depreciation reserve the further question is whether the balance-sheet proves that this sum was utilized as working capital. Assuming further for the purposes of this case that the analysis of the statement made in the balance-sheet might indicate that this sum could not but have been utilized as working capital, it has to be remembered that no such conclusion is possible unless it is known as a fact that the statements made in the balance-sheets under the different heads are correct statements. On that there is absolutely no evidence. All that the balance-sheet, as submitted, shows is that certain statements were made. The mere fact that the statements were made can never be taken as proving that the statement were correct.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.