1. Dispute over bonus calculation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, concerning the deductibility of service fees paid to a parent company under a technical aid agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th May, 1959
S.R. DAS, C.J.I. N.H. BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Crompton Parkinson (Works) Private Ltd., Bombay, Appellant
Versus
Its Workmen and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 756 and 757 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. N. A, Palkhivala, Advocate, M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co, with him), for Appellant; M/s. Rajani Patel and Janardan Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, JANARDAN SHARMA, N.A.PALKHIWALA, RAJANI PATEL, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.N.ANDLEY
C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, JANARDAN SHARMA, N.A.PALKHIWALA, RAJANI PATEL, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.N.ANDLEY
An Industrial Tribunal cannot disallow legitimate, audited business expenditures to increase bonus surplus unless the expenditure is a sham or intended to defraud workmen. It must also adhere to established bonus formulas rather than making ad hoc determinations.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Calculation of bonus - Available surplus - Disallowance of expenditure - In the absence of cogent and compelling evidence leading to the definite conclusion that a purported expenditure was a sham or had been made with the express object of minimising profits to deprive workmen of their bonus, it is not the duty of an Industrial Tribunal to substitute its own judgment as to what was or was not commercially justified in the place of the judgment exercised by the company and its Directors. (Para 10)
(B) Bonus Formula - Adherence to established formulas - Prior charges - To deduct bonus as a prior charge even before the recognised items of prior charges is contrary to the established bonus formula and amounts to an ad hoc determination which is not conducive to harmonious and peaceful relations between workmen and employers. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A company entered into a technical aid agreement with its parent company to receive technical assistance, designs, and the use of trademarks in exchange for a service fee calculated as a percentage of net sales. During a dispute regarding bonus payments for a specific financial year, the Industrial Tribunal disallowed a major portion of this service fee as a revenue expenditure for the purpose of calculating the available surplus, treating it as either commercially unnecessary or capital expenditure, thereby increasing the surplus available for bonus.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in applying the "commercial necessity" test used by tax authorities to an industrial dispute. The expenditure was audited, approved by regulatory and tax authorities, and based on a binding contractual obligation. Without evidence that the payment was a sham or intended to defraud workmen, the Tribunal could not prune the expenditure. Furthermore, the Tribunal's deviation from the standard bonus formula by treating bonus as a prior charge was improper.
Issues: Whether an Industrial Tribunal has the authority to disallow legitimate, audited business expenditures to increase the available surplus for bonus and whether it can deviate from the established bonus formula by treating bonus as a prior charge.
Ratio Decidendi: An Industrial Tribunal cannot substitute its own view on the commercial justification of a company's expenditures unless the expenditure is a sham or intended to deprive workmen of bonuses. Moreover, established bonus formulas must be followed to ensure consistency and industrial peace.
Result: Award modified.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Workmen sought disallowance of service fees as excessive expenditures; the company contended the fees were legitimate business expenses for technical assistance, research, and trademarks. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. The Tribunal erred by applying income-tax commercial necessity tests and departing from the established bonus formula without evidence that expenditures were shams or intended to defraud. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Industrial Tribunals cannot substitute their judgment for management's regarding commercial justification of expenditures unless such expenses are shams or intended to minimize profits to deprive bonus. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal allowed; Tribunal's award modified to grant one month's basic wages as bonus, allowing the full service fee as a deductible expenditure. (Para 11 )
6. Can an Industrial Tribunal disallow legitimate business expenditures when calculating bonus?
No. In the absence of cogent evidence that an expenditure is a sham or made specifically to minimize profits to deprive workmen of their bonus, a Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the company's management. (Para 10 )
7. Is the commercial necessity test used by income-tax authorities applicable to Industrial Tribunals?
No. The commercial necessity test is derived from specific provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Industrial Disputes Act contains no such provision authorizing Tribunals to apply this test to determine business expenditures. (Para 10 )
8. How should Industrial Tribunals determine the available surplus for bonus distribution?
Tribunals must adhere to the established bonus formula, which requires arriving at the available surplus after providing for recognized prior charges before distributing the remainder among the industry, shareholders, and workmen. (Para 9 )
Judgement
DAS CJI.: These are appeals by special leave filed by Crompton Parkinson (Works) Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) against that part of the award made in References (IT) Nos. 109 and 147 of 1956 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay on 8-1-l957 which concerns the demand of its workmen for bonus for the company s financial year 1954-55. That award was published in the Bombay Government Gazette of 17-1-l957 in Part IL at pages 351-364.
2. The material facts and circumstances leading up to the said award, as they appear from the evidence placed on record before the Tribunal, may shortly be stated as follows: The company was incorporated in India in the year 1987. The registered office of the company is at Bombay. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 75 lacs divided into 75,000 ordinary shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. Out of the authorised capital, shares of the value of Rs.60 lacs have been issued, subscribed and fully paid. At its inception the company was 100 per cent, subsidiary of the well-known British company named Crompton Parkinson Ltd. (hereinafter called the Parent company). In 1937 the company commenced its business which was and is to manufacture electrical equipment such as transformers, motors, fans, starters anti switch gears and to sell the same in the market. All the goods, which the company manufactures, are manufactured wholly in accordance with patterns, designs, specifications and technical processes developed by and belonging to the Parent company which the latter makes available to the company. The company s products are sold under the trade names and marks belonging to the Parent company, namely, "Crompton Parkinson", "Crompton", "Parkinson" and "C. P.". Between 1937 and 1947 the company s business is said to have been in a stage of development and progress and it is admitted that the Parent company made no charge for the several services and facilities given by it to the company. In the year 1947, after the company s business had been established on a firm footing, an agreement was concluded between the two companies in order to provide, on a long term basis, for the continuance of the technical assistance and service and other facilities afforded by the Parent company on which the company was wholly dependent. That agreement, which is said to be of a type commonly executed between the manufacturing and industrial concerns in India and their respective associates, parents or affiliates abroad and generally known as "Technical Aid Agreements" is said to have received the approval of the Government of India to promote the industrial development of the country. That agreement was actually executed on 12-8-1947 and provided that for a period of 20 years the Parent company would render to the company various facilities and services, including, amongst others, the following;
"(i) the use of the latest designs, manufacturing information and production methods discovered and developed by Crompton Parkinson Ltd. ;
(ii) the fullest information and advice as to the most suitable machine tools and production machinery and equipment and as to the correct operation and use thereof;
(iii) the supply at cost of machinery, equipment, raw materials and manufacturing parts. Under this facility the appellants obtain the benefit of bulk purchase terms under which Crompton Parkinson Ltd. purchase their raw materials;
(iv) the benefit of the knowledge and experience of Crompton Parkinson Ltd. s executive in all matters relating to technical, mechanical and financial management;
(v) the service of the Crompton Parkinson. Ltd. s experts and technical personnel;
(vi) facilities for training of selected employees of the petitioners in Crompton Parkinson Ltd. s Works, and
(vii) licence to use on the appellants products the world-famous trademarks, "Crompton Parkinson", " Crompton", "Parkinson" and "C. P." belonging to Crompton Parkinson Limited."
In lieu of all royalties, licence fees and other conside
