Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) This appeal arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant Podar Plastics (P) Ltd. and the respondents, its workmen and it has reference to the claim made by the respondents for bonus for the year 1959. The respondents claim that for the relevant year they should get bonus equivalent to three months' salary including dearness, allowance. On hearing the parties and on considering the evidence adduced by them, the Tribunal has directed that the appellant shall pay to the respondents bonus at the rate of half months' basic wages excluding allowances and overtime for the said year. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
(2.) The appellant is a private company and its registered office is situated at Podar Chambers, Parsee Bazar Street, Fort, Bombay. It owns a factory at Supari Baug Road where it manufactures plastic products. The appellant's case before the Tribunal was that if proper accounts are made in accordance with the Full Bench Formula, it would be found that there is no available surplus from which any bonus can be paid to the respondents. On the other hand the respondents urged that the working of the Formula would show a substantial available surplus from which three months' wages as bonus can be easily paid. As usual, the controversy between the parties centered round prior charges which the appellant claimed ought to be deducted from the gross profits. One of the points of dispute between the parties was whether depreciation which has to be deducted as a prior charge should be statutory depreciation or notional normal depreciation. The figure of the profit was admitted at Rs. 2.70 lacs. The Tribunal made alternative calculations, one on the basic that statutory depreciation alone should be deducted, while the other was prepared on the basis the notional normal depreciation as claimed by the appellant should be deducted. On the first calculation the available surplus was found to be Rs. 0.44 lac. On the alternative calculation, it was found to be Rs. 0.33 lacs. For the purpose of this appeal we will accept the latter calculation which is made on the basis that the notional normal depreciation has to be deducted.
(3.) It has conceded before us by the learned Addl. Solicitor-General for the appellant that there are two mistakes in this calculation. The amount of notional normal depreciation which has been shown as Rs. 0.18 lac ought to be Rs. 0.73 lac. Similarly the amount of income-tax which is shown as Rs. 0.96 lac ought to be Rs. 0.95 lac. Thus, the two mistakes accounting for nearly Rs. 60,000/- have been made in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal in making this calculation, and that would make the available surplus as Rs. 0.39 lac; that is one aspect of the matter which has to be borne in mind in dealing with the appeal before us.;