Vaidialingam, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS appeal, by special leave, by the workmen is against the award, dated 20/10/1967, of the Industrial tribunal, Madras in I. D. No. 65 of 1966 in so far as it declined to grant additional bonus for the years 1962 and 1963. The respondent, Dunlop Rubber Company of India Limited, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes for light and heavy vehicles, has a factory in Calcutta, besides one at Ambattur in Madras, which was started in or about 1959. At the time of the award, the company was employing about 1,200 workmen but, during the years 1962 and 1963, it was employing about 800 workmen. The company paid to its workmen for each of these two years, 1962 and 1963, 12 weeks' basic wages as annual bonus. The workmen were not satisfied with the said payment and demanded additional bonus of three months' basic wages for each of these years. According to the workmen, the company has made a net profit of abort 3.0 crores in each of these years. The company, however, declined to meet the demand with the result that the government of Madras by its order, dated 15/10/1966, referred the dispute regarding the additional bonus to the Industrial tribunal, Madras. There was also another dispute referred regarding the alteration of the gratuity scheme. But we are not concerned with this dispute. The case of the workmen, as disclosed by their written statement before the tribunal, was as follows.
(3.) THE company, according to their published profit and loss account has made a net profit of Rs.3.30 crores and Rs.3.27 crores for the years 1962 and 1963 respectively. THE management have made various deductions from their gross profit, which were not justified according to the full bench Formula. THE management in their work sheet claimed Ra. 2.49 crores as rehabilitation and this huge amount has been claimed to purposely defeat the just demands of the workmen. Having due regard to the profits earned by the company, the demand of three months' basic wages as additional bonus was justified. The company resisted the claim of the union. The case of the. company was as follows.;