ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the award of 3 1/2 months' basic wages amounting approximately to Rs. 8,22,500/- as bonus to workmen of the appellant Company, the Rohtas Industries Limited in a reference under the Industrial Dispute Act. For the purposes of application of the "Full Bench Formula" the Industrial Tribunal assessed Rs. 34,50,840/- as the annual share deductible for replacement and rehabilitation of buildings and machinery, the return on paid up capital at 4% as Rs. 8,16,967/-, the return on reserves employed as working capital at 2% as Rs. 4,88,214 and after making other deductions in respect of which there is no dispute now viz., depreciation fixed assets other than buildings and machinery at Rs. 3,45,000/- and taxes on profit as Rs. 15,95,489/-, it assessed the total deductible charges as Rs. 66,96,510/- Deducting this amount from the gross profits of Rs. 78,50,099/- the Tribunal found the surplus out of which bonus could be claimed as Rs. 11,53,589/- In arriving at the figure of Rs. 34,50,840/- as the annual share for replacement and rehabilitation in respect of buildings and machinery the Tribunal adopted as the multiplier, for machinery installed before 1947 at 2.5 and for post 1947 machinery at nil and the multiplier for pre 1947 buildings at 2 and post 1947 buildings as nil. As regards divisors for deciding the period over which the amount arrived at by the application of the multipliers should be spread, the Tribunal held 18 years for pre 1947 machinery and 28 years for post 1947 machinery as the proper figures and 27 and 36 years as the proper figures for pre 1947 and post 1947 buildings respectively.

(2.) In appeal before the Appellate Tribunal the employer challenged the correctness of these multipliers and divisors and also contended that the rate of return on paid up capital should have been calculated at 6% and the rate of return on reserves used as working capital at 4%. If these contentions were accepted there would be no available surplus and the contention on behalf of the employer was that no bonus should have been awarded.

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal rejected all these contentions except as regards the claim for 4 % as the rate of return on reserves used as working capital. On this count it held that the surplus would be reduced by a sum of Rs. 4,88,214/-. The Appellate Tribunal then proceeded to say:-