KHANDESH SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO LIMITED JALGAON Vs. RASHTRIYA GIRNI KAMGAR SANGH JALGAON
LAWS(SC)-1960-1-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on January 22,1960

KHANDESH SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY,LIMITEDJALGAON Appellant
VERSUS
RASHTRIYA GIRNI KAMGAR SANGH,JALGAON Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BAREILLY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1971-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH NARAYAN MEHRA VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/C J M NAINITAL [LAWS(ALL)-2006-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
AVULA RAGHURAMAIAH VS. PALLEMPAATI SEETAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2003-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
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]
CHANCHAL SHARMA VS. GANGA RAM SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-1990-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
S P JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1965-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
SEBANTI GOSWAMI NEE CHATTERJEE VS. SAGNIK GOSWAMI [LAWS(CAL)-2001-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
V A NAIR VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO [LAWS(BOM)-1971-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
ABBOTT LABORATORIES INDIA LIMITED VS. J D JAMDAR MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT [LAWS(BOM)-1995-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
R N ENGINEER VS. KAUSHIK H DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-2002-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
AMRISH N. PATEL, MEMBER - JAN SANGARSH MANCH VS. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY [LAWS(GJH)-2012-2-585] [REFERRED TO]
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., through authorized representative, Mr. Manoj Puroshottam Paradkar VS. Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd., r/by its Managing Director Mr. R. Subrahmanyam Iyer, Mr. R. Subrahmanyam Iyer S/o V. Ragavan Iyer and [LAWS(KAR)-2010-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER VS. DURGI [LAWS(J&K)-1973-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
PETLAD TURKEY RED DYE WORKS COMPANY LIMITED VS. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION [LAWS(SC)-1960-2-1] [EXPLAINED]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. BAKSHI GULAM MOHAMMAD [LAWS(SC)-1966-5-2] [REFERRED]
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]
J K SYNTHETICS LIMITED VS. J K SYNTHETICS MAZDOOR UNION [LAWS(SC)-1971-9-55] [REFERRED]
BABULAL RAMCHARAN VS. CHHOTEKHAN LAL KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1975-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND VS. TIRATH RAM GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-1971-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
YOHANNAN VS. MATHAI [LAWS(KER)-1990-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH NARAYAN MEHRA VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/C.J.M., NAINITAL AND ANR. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
NIMA TSERING KHRIME VS. R.K. KHRIMEY [LAWS(GAU)-1985-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
CON DECOR REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VS. SMRITIKANA GHOSE [LAWS(NCD)-2002-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KASINATH BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2006-8-60] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, J. - (1.)This appeal raises the question as to what extent the reserves can be deducted from the amount required for rehabilitation of plant and machinery and also as to the manner by which the deductible reserves can be ascertained. It would be enough if we narrated only the facts relevant to the question raised. The appellant, Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, is a textile mill and its factory is situate at Jalgaon. The respondent, Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, represents the employees of the appellant-Company. The respondent on behalf of the employees issued a notice to the appellant under S. 42 (2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, demanding payment of reasonable bonus for the period from January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955. Negotiations in this regard having failed, the respondent made a reference to the Industrial Court under S. 73A of the said Act for arbitration of the dispute arising out of the said notice.
(2.)The arbitrator, i.e., the Industrial Court, following the "Full Bench Formula", ascertained the surplus to be Rs. 2.20 lakhs after deducting the prior charges from the gross profits of the Company, but it did not give any credit to the rehabilitation amount apart from the statutory depreciation. The Industrial Court disallowed this item for the following reasons:It estimated the amount required for rehabilitation at Rs. 60 lakhs; out of this amount it deducted Rs. 51 lakhs representing the reserves and the balance of Rs. 9 lakhs spread over a period of 15 years gave the figure of Rs. 60,000 as the amount that should be set apart for the year in question for rehabilitation. As the statutory depreciation was Rs. 83,639, it came to the conclusion that the Company would not be entitled to any allocation as a prior charge for rehabilitation. After excluding the said item of rehabilitation, it fixed the surplus in a sum of Rs. 2.20 lakhs and awarded to the employees four months' basic wages as bonus.
(3.)The learned Solicitor General contended that the Industrial Court accepted the position that the reserves were used as working capital, but deducted the said amount from the amount required for rehabilitation on a wrong and unjustified assumption that, as the amounts so required would be spent for rehabilitation over a course of 15 years by instalments, the temporary user of the said reserves would not affect the question as they would be released in part or in whole in future years. He argued that this assumption was contrary to the view expressed in decided cases and also the principle governing the ascertainment of the amount for rehabilitation purposes.
;


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