Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J: The Appellant is an Electricity Supply Co., and in this Appeal by Special Leave challenges the Award made against it, by the Industrial Tribunal (III) at Allahabad on 15th November 1965. The dispute between the Appellant and its Workmen is one relating to the bonus payable for the year 1960-61. As an amicable settlement could not be arrived at, the State of U. P. by its order dated 24-1-1962 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:

"Should the employers be required to pay bonus to their Workmen for the year 1960-61? If so, at what rate and with what details?"

The case of the Appellant was that after allowing for prior charges no available surplus was left for the payment of bonus to workmen. According to the Company a gross profit of Rs. 6,06,684/- was earned for the year ending 31st March 1961, but the Tribunal added to it a sum of Rs. 9,949/- as representing extraneous income and consequently computed the gross profit at Rs. 6,16, 633/-. The following prior charges were claimed by the Appellant and we have indicated as against each one of these in the opposite columns what the Tribunal has awarded and disallowed:

Amount claimed by the appellant Amount allowed by the Tribunal.

Expenses as per profit and loss account : Rs. 1,32,156/- Rs. 1,32,156/-

Depreciation :

Normal Rs. 2,02,814/- Notional normal : Rs. 2,02,814/-

Double shift. Rs. 28,413/- Doubt shift : Nil.

Rs. 2,31,227/- Rs. 2,31,227/-

Income Tax. Rs. 1,09,485/- Rs. 1,04,415/-

Contingency Reserve. Rs. 32,900/- Nil.

Development Reserve. Rs. 22,333/- Nil.

Return on share capital. Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/-

Return on working capital. Rs. 60,540/- Nil.

Rehabilitation requirement. Rs. 15,66,497/- Nil

Total Rs. 22,03,138/- Rs. 4,87,385/-

After making the necessary allowance as aforesaid towards deductions claimed as prior charges from the gross profit (Rs. 6,16,633/- minus Rs. 4,87,385/-) the Tribunal computed the available surplus at Rs.1,29,248/-. Out of this amount of available surplus three months bonus which amount to Rs. 73,000/- was awarded as bonus leaving sufficient funds for the Company to run its undertaking.

2. On behalf of the Appellant it is contended that the Tribunal was in error in disallowing depreciation on account of (a) double shift, (b) Income-tax, (c) return on working capital, (d) amount required for rehabilitation, (e) contingency reserve and (f) development reserve, the latter two of which were statutory reserves which the undertaking had to provide for, under the schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act.

3. The reasons given by the Tribunal for disallowing the double shift depreciation was that the Company did not produce any documents to show the total running hours of each boiler or turbine, that in any case the evidence relating to the running of each of the boilers and turbines does not justify the claim for depreciation for the double shift on the entire plant and machinery; that the Company could only claim double shift allowance with regard to certain specified machinery and that in the previous years it had not claimed double shift allowance nor did it claim any deductions before the Income-tax authorities for the year in question. For these reasons it held that the Appellant was not entitled to claim the double shift depreciation during the year in dispute. The contingency reserve and the development reserve were disallowed as in the view of the Tribunal they were not a charge on the profits. The rehabilitation requirements were rejected on the ground that the Company had failed to prove the original cost of the plant and machinery; that it had failed to show the actual amount spent on rehabilitation of plant and machinery either in the year in dispute or in any subsequent year; that no rehabilitation allowance was claimed in the previous year; that the cost of the assets of the Company had not been duly proved as engineers were not called and that the quotations produced by the Company cou