Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC896; [1960(1)FLR245]; (1960)IILLJ261SC; [1960]3SCR423
Wanchoo, J.1. These are two appeals by special leave against the same award of theThird Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, and shall be disposed of by thisjudgment. Appeal No. 195 is by Messrs. Burn and Co. Limited (hereinafter calledthe company) and Appeal No. 196 is by the workmen of Messrs. Burn and Co.Limited (hereinafter called the workmen). There were disputes between thecompany and the workmen on various matters, which were referred to the tribunalfor adjudication. Of these disputes, only two now survive in the two appeals.The company's appeal is with respect to that part of the award which deals withincentive bonus to the clerical and subordinate staff while the workmen'sappeal is with respect to that part of the award which deals with the cashbenefit of eight Annas eight per head per working day for the period thecanteen was not in operation. 2. We shall first take up the company's appeal. The company has introducedincentive bonus for manual workers including Sarkars and Checke...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1320; [1960]39ITR723(SC)
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal by Special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta and arise out of an income-tax reference which was decided against the assessee. 2. The appellant - Bengal Textile Association - now in liquidation (which for the sake of convenience will hereinafter be termed the association) was statutory corporation incorporated under the Central Ordinance No. 32 of 1945 which was promulgated on September 8, 1945, 'for the purpose of improving the procurement and wholesale distribution of' cotton piece-goods in Province of Bengal. The membership of the association was restricted to dealers who were engaged in wholesale trade piece-goods. Its board of control consisted of nine members, all nominated by the Government. By an agreement between the Government of Bengal and the association, certain privileges were conferred upon the association. By one of the clauses the Government agreed to be responsible and pay every month to the association the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC907; (1960)62BOMLR1085; [1960]39ITR540(SC); [1960]3SCR417
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court, and is directedagainst an order dated September 28, 1955, and a judgment dated February 20,1956, of the High Court of Bombay. By the order, the High Court reframed aquestion referred to it by the Appellate Tribunal at Bombay, which it answeredby its judgment. 2. Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) whohas filed this appeal, was, at all material times, residing in Bombay. She wasa shareholder, holding 760 shares of Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co., Ltd.,Bombay. For the assessment year 1950-51 (the previous year being the calendaryear 1949), she was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 1,50,765which included a grossed-up dividend income of Rs. 1,47,026. In the latterincome was including a sum of Rs. 47,120 being the dividends declares byMafatlal Gagalbhai & Co., Ltd., Bombay. Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co., Ltd.,is a private limited Company with its registered office at Bombay. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC914; [1960(1)FLR23]; (1960)IILLJ228SC; [1960]3SCR407
Das Gupta, J.1. When the management of an industry holds an enquiry into the charges against a workman for the purpose of deciding what action if any, should be taken against him, has the workman a right to be represented by a representative of his Union at the enquiry That is the principal question raised in this appeal. The 14 appellants, all workmen in M/s. Tata Locomotives & Engineering Co., Ltd., Jamshedpur, were dismissed under the orders of the company's management on the result of an enquiry held against them. As industrial disputes between these workmen and the company were at that time pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, the company filed applications purporting to be under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act praying for approval of the action taken by it against the workmen. Workmen also filed applications under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act complaining of the action taken against them by the company. The applications of the company under s. 33 were howev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC898; (1960)62BOMLR898; [1960]3SCR397
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court. The brief facts necessary for its disposal are these. Messrs. S.S. Miranda Ltd. (hereinafter called the respondent) is a company and was holding a trade and import licence of foreign liquor as well as a vendor's licence under the Bombay Abkari Act Bom. V of 1878 (hereinafter called the Act), upto the end of March 1949. It used to keep the liquor in a bonded warehouse. On April 2, 1948, the respondent was informed by the State of Bombay (hereinafter called the appellant) to remove the liquor from the bonded warehouse after paying the necessary excise duty. In pursuance of this letter, the respondent paid the duty and got transport permits from the appellant. It may be mentioned that the bonded warehouse was in the premises of the respondent itself and all that happened after the payment of the duty was that the liquor no longer remained in bond but came into possession of the respondent. The transport per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC866; 1960CriLJ1239; [1960]3SCR388
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. On December 10, 1958, Mr. M. L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against the appellant Mr. R. P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in-law Mrs. Kaushalya Devi had committed offences under Sections 420,109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. When the appellant found that for several months no further action was taken on the said First Information Report which was hanging like a sword over his head he filed a criminal complaint on April 11, 1959, against Mr. Sethi under Sections 204, 211 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and thus took upon himself the onus to prove that the First Information Report lodged by Mr. Sethi was false. On the said complaint Mr. Sethi moved that the proceedings in question should be stayed as the police had not made any report on the First Information Report lodged by him and that the case started by him was still pending with the police. After hearing arguments the learned Magistrate ordered that the appellant's complaint s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC886; [1960(1)FLR86]; (1960)IILLJ219SC; [1960]3SCR382
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of bonus. There was a dispute between the workmen of B.N. Elias & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellants) and their employers, B.N. Elias and Co. Ltd. and others (hereinafter called the respondents) with respect to bonus for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956. The case of the appellants was that they were entitled to bonus as a condition of service irrespective of profit or loss on the following scale :- I - Clerical staff. 1 month's basic pay as bonus in April, 1 month's basic pay as bonus in August, 1 month's basic pay as bonus in December. II - Subordinate staff. 1 month's basic wages as bonus in April, 1 month's basic wages as bonus in August, 1 month's basic wages as bonus at Puja time, 1 month's basic wages as bonus in December. 2. According to the appellants this bonus was always paid from 1942 to 1952. Later as there were some disputes between the appellants and the respondents, the respondents wanted to sto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC873; [1960(1)FLR16]; (1960)IILLJ241SC; [1960]3SCR378
Wanchoo, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises two questions, namely, (i) bonus for the year 1952 and (ii) retrospective operation of the order of the Industrial Tribunal relating to increase in wages. The appellant is a company manufacturing barrels and drums at Bombay. There was a dispute between the appellant and its workmen about a number of matters, which was referred to the tribunal by the Government of Bombay on November 17, 1955. In respect of the two matters which are now raised in appeal the workmen claimed (i) four months' wages including dearness allowance as bonus for the year 1952 and (ii) retrospective operation of the wage-scale to be fixed by the tribunal from March 1, 1952. 2. So far as the increase in wages is concerned, the appellant agreed to the scale suggested by the tribunal but it opposed the grant of the increased scale retrospectively and also wanted that the increased wages should be linked to some guaranteed production. The reason for this was that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC893; [1960(1)FLR107]; (1960)IILLJ275SC; [1960]3SCR371
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court at Coimbatore directing the appellant, the Management of the Kairbetta Estate, Kotagiri, to pay lay-off compensation to its workmen, the respondents, for the period between July 28, 1957, to September 2, 1957. This order was passed on a complaint filed by the respondents before the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The material facts leading to the respondents' complaint must be set out briefly at the outset. On July 26, 1957, Mr. Ramakrishna Iyer, the appellant's Manager, was assaulted by some of the workmen of the appellant. He suffered six fractures and had to be in hospital in Coonoor and Madras for over a month. The appellant's staff working in the division known as Kelso Division was also threatened by the workmen. As a result of these threats three members of the staff wrote to the appellant on July 27...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC879; [1960(1)FLR183]; (1960)ILLJ580SC; [1960]3SCR364
Das Gupta, J. 1. On December 13, 1957, the Government of West Bengal referred under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act the following dispute between M/s. Northbrook Jute Co., Ltd., and Dalhousie Jute Mills who are appellants before us and their workmen :- 'Do the proposals of rationalisation in the above two mills involve any increase in workload If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?' 2. Almost a month before this the proposal of introducing a rationalisation scheme in the mills of these companies had been considered at an extraordinary meeting of the Works Committee and the Committee had agreed to the proposal. A notice under s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was then given by the companies to the Unions of their workmen and it was because the workmen objected to the introduction of the rationalisation scheme that the dispute arose and was referred by the Government to the Tribunal. On December 16 when the above reference was pending before the Tribunal the management ...
Tag this Judgment!