ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD Vs. WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER APPELLANT NO 1 WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER APPELLANT NO 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court wasdelivered by

(2.) THESE two appeals arise out of a demandfor bonus made against the appellants by their workmen forthe year 1953-54. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.,Bombay, the Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd., Bombayand the Concrete Association of India, Bombay, were facedwith a demand of their workmen employed in their offices atBombay for bonus equivalent to seven months' basic wageswith dearness allowance. The industrial disputearising outof this demand was referred by the government of Bombay foradjudication before the Industrial tribunal, Bombay, unders. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and it was numbered I.T. No. 10 of 1956. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.,Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka, was similarly faced with ademand of its workmen for bonus equivalent to 50% of totalearnings or six months' total earnings. This dispute wasreferred to the same tribunal and was numbered 1. T. No. 13of 1956. By consent of parties both the references wereheard together and evidence was recorded and documentstendered in the first reference. By its award delivered on 30/11/1956, the tribunal directed the companies topay their workmen drawing a basic pay or wages up to Rs. 500.00per month bonus equivalent to 1/3 of their basic wages orpay (less bonus already paid for the year 1953-54) subjectto the conditions specified in the award. It is againstthis award that the respective companies have preferred thetwo appeals by special leave. In this judgment the saidcompanies will hereafter be described as the appellant andtheir workmen as respondents.

(3.) IN support of its case the appellant examined Mr. G. R.Tongaonkar, its controller of planning and development, andproduced a statement (Ex. C-2) showing the original cost ofthe blocks to be replaced and the approximate replacementcost. It also produced amongst other documents a statement(Ex. C-10) showing the cost of the assets of the mergingcompanies on 31/07/1936, as taken over by the appellantand the statement (Ex. C-29) showing the capitalexpenditure from 1936-37 to 1953-54 on expansion,modernisation, rehabilitation, replacement, sundry capitaljobs, etc.IN addition a statement was filed by the appellant (Ex. C-23) showing that the calculations made under the Full benchformula would show a substantial deficit and that wouldsupport its case that there was no available surplus for therelevant year from which any bonus could be claimed by therespondents.