ALUMINIUM CORPORATION Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are against an award of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58 to workmen of the appellant-Company. The appellant which is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium from basic raw material has its factory at, J.K. Nagar near Asansol in West Bengal. A dispute having arisen between the appellant and some of its workmen on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58 it was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, by an order of the Government of West Bengal. In another reference made by that Government to the same Tribunal on May 2, 1959 a dispute between the Company and its workmen employed at its factory at, J.K. Nagar, Asansol, on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58 was one of the matters referred. In the first reference the Tribunal has awarded in favour of the workmen bonus equivalent to three months' basic wages inclusive of the amount (equivalent to half a month's basic wages) that has already been paid by the Company voluntarily. In the second reference the parties filed joint petitions before the Tribunal agreeing to abide by any decision or award whatsoever passed by the Tribunal regarding the bonus issue in the first reference and requesting that similar award be made regarding the issue of bonus in both references. The Tribunal accordingly passed an order in the second reference that the workmen would get the same bonus as awarded in the first reference. The result of this is that the workmen covered by the second reference would also be entitled to three months' basic wages as bonus for the year 1957-58.

(2.) Applying the rules embodied in what is know as the Full Bench Formula evolved by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in 1950 and approved by this Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd., v. Workmen, 1959 SCR 925 for calculation of profit bonus the Tribunal held that the available surplus was Rs 4.63 lakhs. It pointed out that if bonus equivalent to three months' basic wage was given to workmen still the Company will have Rs 3.91 lakhs as the available surplus inclusive of the refund of income tax on account of bonus, which meant an expenditure of only Rs 0.72 lakhs on this head by the Company. In reaching this figure of Rs 4.63 lakhs as the available surplus the Tribunal allowed Rs 0.43 lakhs as return on reserves used as working capital and allowed nothing under the head rehabilitation charge. In support of the appeals Mr Vishwanatha Sastri has vehemently challenged the Tribunal's view on both these matters.

(3.) On the question of rehabilitation charge Mr Sastri contended that there was no justification whatsoever for rejecting the claim on this head altogether. It has to be remembered in this connection that by a series of decisions of this Court it is now well settled that the burden to prove any prior charge under the head rehabilitation lies on the employer and that unless the employer has by proper evidence established its claim to some amount as rehabilitation charge the claim must be rejected. The appellant adopted a curious procedure. It examined its Manager and through him put in statements showing its calculations of available surplus. A number of statements were put, in each showing the available surplus as nil. While however in statements I and II the rehabilitation charge is shown as Rs 8,27,234 it has shown as Rs 5,84,534 in statements III and IV, and in statements V and VI the figure is Rs 10,25,021. How such different figures could be arrived at has not been explained by its only witness, the Manager. The witness stated that the assets of the Company were revalued in 1956 by a Committee of which he was one of the members. He has added that each of the assets was ascertained with reference to the Company's registers and they were divided in blocks according to their date of acquisition. A portion of the report made by the Revaluation Committee was put in. There is nothing however in this or in the witness's evidence that throws any light on the important question of multiplier and divisor. On the question of multiplier, the witness says that the multiplier was worked out according to the procedure as detailed in the Revaluation Report itself. He has not tried himself to explain this basis. It is by no means clear that he has special knowledge and skill in the matter of replacement of the different machinery. The report was signed also by two other members, neither of whom has been examined. The materials on the basis of which these multipliers were arrived at have also not been established by any evidence.