SHELAT, - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :-
(2.) THESE two appeals by special leave, one by the appellant company and the other by, its workmen are directed against the award dated 4/05/1964 of the Industrial tribunal, Rajasthan to which reference was made under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute referred to the tribunal related to the workmen's demand for bonus for the years 1956-57 to 1959-60. By the said award the tribunal disallowed the claim for 1956-57 on the ground that it was belated and allowed the demand for the rest of the years 1957-58 to 1959-60. In working out the available surplus for distribution as bonus the tribunal in general followed the full bench formula evolved by the Labour Appellate tribunal in Millowners' Association, Bombay v. Radhtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay(1) and approved by this court in the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen.(2) The tribunal worked out first the gross profits for the said years and the prior charges deductible therefrom and arrived at the available surplus. For the year 1957-58 gross profits found were Rs. 28.29 lacs, Rs. 25.36 lacs for 1958-59 and Rs. 34.92 lacs for 1959-60. There is no dispute about these figures. The tribunal then ascertained the prior charges deductible from the gross profits. There is no dispute with regard to the figures for depreciation, income-tax and wealth tax. As regards interest allowable on paid up capital, the tribunal allowed 6%. per annum tax free interest for 1957-58 and 1958-59. For 1959-60 the Company remanded interest at the rate of 8.57% by reason of a change in he Income-tax law having been made during the year. The Union, on the other hand, claimed that only 6 % interest should be allowed. The tribunal allowed a mean between the two, viz., 7 1/4. There was no question of interest on working ;capital as it was not the Company's case that any reserve was utilised as working capital similarly there is no dispute with regard to the rehabilitation charge for buildings allowed by the tribunal. Apart from the question. as to interest allowable on paid up capital for the year 959-60, the main dispute. in these appeals is with regard to the rehabilitation allowances in respect of plant and machinery for he three years in question and the method followed by the tribunal in calculating them. The Company ever since its commencement has been purchasing new and also old reconditioned machinery. As regards new machinery the Company furnished, (a) cost to the Company, (b) the current price during the year 1963-64 and (c) percentage in the rise in prices. The Company also furnished in respect of reconditioned machinery (a) cost to the Company and (b) estimated cost which its vendors would have paid if they had purchased it as new in the years in which the Company installed the old machinery. In respect of the old machinery the cost to the Company and the estimated cost to the sellers according to the Company were as follows: JUDGEMENT_538_AIR(SC)_1968Html1.htm The difference between the cost to the Company and the estimated cost to the sellers thus come to 150%. No old machinery was purchased during 1958-59 and 1959-60. The Company also produced quotations of prices for equivalent machinery current in year 1963-64. The Union did not dispute (a) the figures of cost to the Company of the new machinery as given in its statement Ex. M2, (b) the figures of cost of old machinery to the Company and its estimated cost to the sellers as given in Ex. M 3 and (c) the quotations of prices received by the Company in 1963-64 from manufacturers of these machines, both old and new, 'except in the case of machinery installed, during the bonus years.'
(3.) THE tribunal worked out the rehabilitation requirements for the years 1957-58 to 1959-60 in a Chart which is Annx. A to the award. Since the controversy in these appeals mainly centers round the figures of rehabilitation requirements allowed by the tribunal it is expedient to set out that Annexure: 784 JUDGEMENT_538_AIR(SC)_1968Html2.htm It will be observed from Annx. A that the tribunal accepted as regards new machinery the Company's figures of cost and quotations as cost of replacement and dividing the cost of replacement by the original cost to the Company I worked out multipliers for each year. This dispute, however, is with regard to the multipliers arrived at by the tribunal in respect of old machinery.;