Back
Supreme Court Of India
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED
Versus
Their Workmen
Decided On : November 15, 1957
BONUS - DEPRECIATION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - INCOME TAX - LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - REVIEW - WORKMEN'S CLAIM - FULL BENCH FORMULA - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 - SECTION 10(VI), 10(VI-A), 10(VI-B) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER 47 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 9(1), 10 - MILLS. MARTIN BURN LTD. V. R. A. BANERJEE - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 92 OF 1957 - MODEL MILLS, ETC. TEXTILE MILLS NAGPUR V. RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH - MAHALAXMI WOLLEN MILLS LTD. V. THEIR WORK-WORKMEN - BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY, LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN - B. E. S. T. WORKERS UNION V. BOMBAY SUBURBAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY LTD. - GREAVES COTTON AND CROMPTON PARKINSON, LTD. V. ITS WORKMEN - BENGAL CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS, LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN:
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, two textile mills, challenged the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the two mills formed part of the same unit and that there was a surplus of Rs. 2,87,676.00 against which the workmen's claim for bonus was justified. The appellants contended that the two mills were two different units and that there was a trading loss during the relevant year, thus no bonus was payable to the workers. The appellants also filed an application for review before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, claiming that the order passed by the Tribunal was patently erroneous and that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal held that it had no power of review and that even if it had such power, no case had been made out for the exercise of such power.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the two mills formed part of the same unit and that there was a surplus available for distribution as bonus. The Court also held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disallowing the appellants' claim in respect of depreciation debited by the appellants to the extent of Rs. 4,43,927.00. The Court further held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to review its own orders in appropriate cases under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but that in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no mistake apparent on the face of the record had been shown.
Issues: 1. Whether the two mills formed part of the same unit and whether there was a surplus available for distribution as bonus? 2. Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disallowing the appellants' claim in respect of depreciation debited by the appellants to the extent of Rs. 4,43,927.00? 3. Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to review its own orders in appropriate cases under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 4. Whether in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no mistake apparent on the face of the record had been shown?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal were correct in holding that the two mills formed part of the same unit and that there was a surplus available for distribution as bonus. The Court reasoned that the appellants had failed to show that the findings of the tribunals were erroneous. 2. The Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disallowing the appellants' claim in respect of depreciation debited by the appellants to the extent of Rs. 4,43,927.00. The Court reasoned that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which allow for depreciation, are not mandatory in industrial adjudication proceedings and that the tribunals have the discretion to determine the amount of depreciation that is allowable. 3. The Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to review its own orders in appropriate cases under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reasoned that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the proceedings before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and that Order 47 of the Code therefore applies to the Tribunal's proceedings. 4. The Court held that in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no mistake apparent on the face of the record had been shown. The Court reasoned that the appellants had failed to show that the Tribunal's order was patently erroneous or that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. The Court also dismissed the application for review filed by the appellants.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise out of two industrial disputes Nos. 24 and 26 of 1951 between the appellants and their workmen. Dispute No. 24 of 1951 had arisen between the management and workers of the Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. , Madurai, whereas dispute No. 26 of 1951, was between the management and workers of the Thiakesar Alai Manapparai. Both the disputes were in respect of bonus claimed by the workmen for the year 1950- 51. The workmen claimed bonus for the year 1950-51 on the allegation that the two mills constituted one unit and had made profits during the relevant year. On the other hand, the appellants contended that the two mills were two different units and the claims for bonus made by the workmen against themshould not be considered together. According to the appellants, during the relevant year there was a trading loss and as such no bonus was payable to the workers. The Industrial tribunal rejected the pleas raised by the appellants and held that the two mills formed part of the same unit. It also came to the conclusion that for the year in question there was a surplus of Rs. 2,87,676. 00 against which the workmens claim for bonus was justified. That is why the tribunal awarded three months bonus to the workmen.
( 2 ) AGAINST this decision the appellants preferred two appeals Nos. 133 and 134 of 1952 to the Labour Appellate tribunal of India at Madras. In these appeals the appellants challenged the findings made by the tribunal against them and urged that bonus was not payable during the relevant year. The workmen also preferred an appeal, No. 168 of 1952, and in this appeal they claimed a larger bonus than what had been awarded by the tribunal below. The appellate tribunal confirmed the finding of the tribunal that the two mills formed part of the same unit. According to the appellate tribunal, the net surplus available for distribution as bonus came to Rs. 2,57,496. 00. The claim made by the appellants in respect of various deductions was examined by the appellate tribunal and deductions were substantially, disallowed in respect of three items. In respect of an amount of Rs. 8,43,927. 00 claimed by the appellants as depreciation on machinery and buildings the appellate tribunal concurred with the industrial tribunal in holding that the claim only for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000. 00 was admissible; in other words, a claim for deducting the balance of Rs. 4,43,927. 00 was disallowed. It is this finding in particular with which we are directly concerned in the present appeals. it may be pointed out at this stage that in determining the amount of net surplus available for distribution as bonus, the appellate tribunal agreed with the industrial tribunal that the provision for taxation made by the appellants to the extent of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 was adequate. In the result, the appeals preferred by the appellants as well as the respondents failed and were dismissed by the appellate tribunal. Against the order dismissing their appeals, the appellants have preferred to this court by special leave the present Civil Appeals Nos. 218 and 219 of 1956.
( 3 ) THE appellants had also preferred an application for review before the Labour Appellate tribunal, Misc. Case No. III-C- 387 of 1953 (Review) on the ground that the order passed by the Labour Appellate tribunal was patently erroneous inasmuch as there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record which should be corrected under the appellate tribunals powers of review. The appellate tribunal hold that it had no power of review and that,- even if it bad such a power, no case had been made out for the exercise of such power because there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record which could not have been discovered whet) the order was made in the presence of the parties. Against this decision, the appellants have preferred to this court by special leave the present Civil A peal No. 217 of 1956.
( 4 ) IN appeals Nos. 218 and 219 of 1956, the main p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
