- (1.) These are two appeals from an Award dated October 29, 1962 by the Second Industrial Tribunal West Bengal in an industrial dispute between Britannia Engineering Company Ltd., Tita-ghur1, West Bengal and its workmen. The dispute related to profit bonus for the year 1959. By an order of the Government of West Bengal dated January 25, 1961 the following issue was referred: "Whether the workmen are entitled to any bonus for the accounting year 1959 payable in 1960 over and above one month's basic wages already distributed If so, what should be the quantum and mode of distriution thereof - The workmen were represented at the hearing by as many as four unions. The Tribunal answered the first question in the affirmative and on the second it held that workmen who had worked for a minimum number of 240 days in the year were entitled to one month's basic wage as additional bonus, workmen who had worked for more than six months but less than 240 days, to additional bonus equal to 1/2 month's wage and workmen who had worked for 3 months but less than 6 months to additional bonus equal to l/4th month's wage. Piece-rated workmen were to get the same benefit on the basis of monthly average basic earnings. Workmen who had worked less than three months were held disentitled to any bonus.
(2.) From this award the employers and three unions have appealed by special leave. The main dispute centres round the calculation of the available surplus by the Tribunal from which the bonus is payable. Both sides have fairly conceded that the approach to the problem by the Tribunal was full of errors. This appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the balance sheet and the profit and loss account of the Company. It is not necessary for us to enter too elaborately into the dispute for our decision can be stated in very short and simple terms. It is agreed on both sides that the net profits came to Rs 6,53,065 and to it must be added Rs 5,48,717 for depreciation and Rs 5,32,000 provision for taxation. This addition gives a figure of Rs 17,33,782 and so far there is no dispute. The dispute arises over some of the other "add-backs" and the deduction of 'prior charges" as laid down in what is popularly known as the Full Bench formula.
(3.) The Tribunal added back to the sum of Rs 17,33,782 certain sums to arrive at the adjusted gross profits before making deductions for prior charges and we shall review these additions separately. The first sum added back is Rs 29,884 which was claimed as a part of expenditure on account of canteen. In Ex. G/8 which is a part of the accounts dealing with miscellaneous expense, a sum of Rs 59,768 is shown as made up of two items: Rs 18,838 (medical expenses) and Rs 40,930 for welfare (including subsidy to works, canteen, pantry expenses and tiffin expenses etc.). The workmen asked that the whole of this amount should be added back. Evidence led on behalf of the workmen was that they were not given any tiffin allowance and that the canteen served only the manual and clerical staff or visitors. The management, in its evidence, established that the workmen get a cup of tea at the concessional rate of .03 paise. All this is not much to the purpose. The fact is that the canteen was subsidised and the amount was actually spent. The Tribunal attempted some kind of justice by adding back half of the amount, overlooking in the first instance that a part of the sum (medical expense) was in a different category altogether and in the next that no such add-back was possible when the amount was proved to be spent. In our opinion the add-back of Rs 29,884 must be cancelled.;