- (1.) This appeal by Messrs. Aluminium Corporation of india Ltd. , Calcutta, filed by special leave, is directed against an award of the Fourth Industrial tribunal, West Bengal, in an industrial dispute relating to payment of bonus for the year 1958-59 to the workmen employed in the appellant's factory at J. K. Nagar, and the head office at Calcutta. The workmen were represented by (i) The Aluminium Mazdoor Union, j. K. Nagar, District Burdwan, and (ii) The Aluminium Corporation's calcutta Employees' Association, Calcutta. The tribunal calculated the surplus available for distribution of bonus on the basis of the full bench formula approved by this court in the case of The Associated Cement Companits Ltd. , Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka v. Its Workmen and Another. The appellant had granted voluntarily bonus equivalent to I/i 6th of the annual basic wages. In this appeal, the award is challenged on only two grounds. One is that the tribunal wrongly rejected the claim of the appellant for return on reserves employed as working capital, and the second is that the tribunal was also wrong in disallowing rehabilitation charges in respect of buildings and machinery of the appellant. Consequently, in this appeal, we are only concerned with these two aspects of calculation of surplus avail- able for distribution of bonus in accordance with the full bench Formula.
(2.) Before we deal with the merits of the appeal, we may mention that, subsequent to the award by the tribunal, a compromise was arrived at between the appellant and the Aluminium Mazdoor Union, J. K. Nagar. In this compromise, parties settled disputes relating to numerous matters and, amongst these disputes settled, they also included the dispute relating to payment of bonus for the year 1958-59. This compromise was signed by counsel who have represented the two parties before us in this appeal. There is a prayer that this compromise be recorded. We accept this compromise and direct that it be recorded, so that the award of the tribunal in respect of payment of bonus for the year 1958-59 as between these two parties shall stand varied in accordance with the terms of this compromise. As a result of this order, we make it clear that the subsequent order to be made by us in respect of the award of the tribunal on the merits shall only be binding as between the appellant and those respondents who are not bound by the compromise and the settlement forming part of the compromise.
(3.) In dealing with the appeal, we first take up the claim of the appellant in respect of return on reserves employed as working capital during the year 1958-59. This claim was rejected by the tribunal on the view that the evidence given on behalf of the appellant was very unsatisfactory. Only general statements were made by the witnesses examined on behalf of theappellant staling that amounts to the value of about Rs. 44 lakhs out of depreciation reserve and some other reserves were utilised as working capital during this year. Astatement Ext. l (i) was filed on behalf of the appellant Company showing the various reserves which were available throughout the year 1958-59. By this statement it was claimed that an average amount of Rs. 1,36,78,004. 00 of reserves was available during this year for being used as working capital and witnesses stated that the amount was actually so used. The tribunal, in our opinion, was right in rejecting this evidence, because the mere fact that the reserves were available for use as working capital does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the reserves must have been so used. The reserves could as well have been utilised for making investments or in acquiring fixed assets. It was on this view that the tribunal rejected the claim for return on reserves used as working capital altogether. However, we consider that the claim should be partly allowed on the basis of the principle laid down by this court in this behalf in the case of Workmen of M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. , v. M/s. Hindustan Motors, ltd. and Another. It was held in that case that the balance-sheet can itself give indications from which inferences can be drawn to find out what items in the balance-sheet represent working capital and what Stems represent fixed assets, investments, etc. , which cannot be treated as working capital. The court also indicated how certain resources must necessarily be employed in acquisition of fixed assets, investments, etc. , so that they will not be available for utilisation as working capital, while there are some resources which must necessarily be utilised as working capital. After these amounts are taken into account, it is possible to find out what amounts out of the reserves were utilised as working capital and what amounts were utilised for other purposes. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly urged that a calculation on the same principle may be made in the present case and return on reserves employed as working capital may be allowed accordingly. The classification of the assets as well as of the resources has to be made in the same manner in which the court proceeded to do so in, the case of Mjs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra).;