Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.38 seconds)
V.A. Nair vs Indian Hume Pipe Co. on 31 March, 1971 cites

Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) vs Mill Mazdoor Union(With Connected ... on 5 August, 1966

In view, however, of the majority decision of the Supreme Court in Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, , holding that S. 33 of the Bonus Act which made the Act applicable to certain pending disputes was invalid is infringing Art. 14 of the Constitution, the arguments in the reference centred around the applicability of the 'Full Bench Formula' evolved by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 90 - Cited by 140 - J C Shah - Full Document

The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd vs Their Workmen on 5 May, 1959

12. It is important to remember, while applying the ratio of these decisions that in our case the amount was in fact paid during the year 1963-64 and the payment was made bona fide in the normal course of business. The bills in satisfaction of which the amount was paid undoubtedly pertained to the working of the previous year but as stated by R. G. Kaulgi, personnel manager of the company, in paragraph 8 of his reply-affidavit before us, the payment had to await the receipt of the bills and, therefore, the payment could only be made in the year 1963-64. This is, therefore, not a case in which a payment is in fact made in a previous year but is brought in the books in the bonus year not can the present case be likened to the illustration taken by the Supreme Court in the Indian Hume Pipe Co.'s case where "loss of previous years (is) carried forward but written off in the accounting year". Here the expenditure was in fact incurred in the accounting year and was, therefore, included in the accounts of that year.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 69 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

The State Of Mysore vs The Workers Of Gold Mines on 22 May, 1958

25. It is true that the engineers' commission has been allowed by Income-tax authorities as legitimate revenue expenditure but that cannot conclude the question whether for bonus calculations the amount can be deducted. As pointed out by the Supreme Court time and again (see for example State of Mysore v. The Workers of Gold Mines, , it is not desirable to allow theoretical or academic considerations unrelated to facts to influence industrial adjudication. The Full Bench formula is elastic enough to meet the requirements of individual cases and amounts which are admissible under existing categories have to be determined in the light of evidence available in a given case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 299 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

M/S. Lipton Limited And Another vs Their Employees on 2 February, 1959

26. The decision in M/s. Lipton Ltd. v. Their Employees, , on which the company's counsel Mr. Ramaswamy relies, is not an authority for the proposition that once the Income-tax authorities allow a deduction as revenue expenditure, the deduction must be allowed for ascertaining the available surplus. Paragraph 10 of the judgment (at p. 682), on which particular stress is laid by the counsel, itself shows that there the Tribunal had erroneously added back an amount which was already added back by the company in computing its profits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 41 - S K Das - Full Document

B.N. Elias And Co., Ltd., ... vs B. N. Elias & Co., Ltd., And Others on 24 March, 1960

In B. N. Elias and Co. Ltd. Employees' Union v. B. N. Elias and Company Ltd. , payment of bonus made uninterruptedly but ex gratia from 1942 to 1952, three or four times a year, was held insufficient to constitute an implied term of services. Principles governing customary or traditional bonus connected with a festival like the puja festival could not, it was held, be extended to a customary bonus unconnected with a festival.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. vs Employees Of Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. on 16 July, 1957

40. It is important that under the Full Bench formula, the right to bonus can arise only if the employer is shown to be in possession of surplus which is actually available for distribution (See M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills v. Employees, ). Estimated profits are profits expected to arise in future. They are not actually earned, and are not, therefore, available for distribution and cannot furnish true basis for working out the right of the labour to bonus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd vs Its Workmen on 31 March, 1964

42. Counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, not right when he says that the reduction in the valuation of closing work-in-progress is comparable to cases in which a fortuitous loss has occurred to the employer. Counsel is right that if a fortuitous profit arises merely on account of a change in the system of accounting adopted by the employer that is extraneous income in which the workmen cannot participate : see Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, , from which it must follow that a fortuitous loss cannot impair the workmen's claim to bonus. But here the reduction in valuation is real and true, not fortuitous. It is not as if the real profits are reduced by an artificial system of accounting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 221 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Ltd vs Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union,Petlad & ... on 3 February, 1960

51. The distinction is important, for, as observed by the Supreme Court in Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. v. Dyes and Chemical Workers' Union, , "while there is no reason to suspect every statement made in a balance-sheet, one cannot presume the statements made therein to be always correct. The burden is on the party who asserts a statement to be correct to prove the same by relevant and acceptable evidence. The mere statement in the balance-sheet is of no assistance to show, therefore, that any portion of the reserves was actually utilised as working capital". (para 4).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 26 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Khandesh Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd vs The Rashtriya Girni Kamgar ... on 2 January, 1960

52. The question whether a statement in a balance-sheet can be taken as proof of a claim that a part of the reserves was actually used as working capital was also considered by the Supreme Court in Khandesh Spg. and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. The Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, , Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1963 - II L.L.J. 629], and in Bengal Kagazkal v. The Titaghar Paper Mills Co. Ltd., . It was observed by Subba Rao, J. in the first of these cases that when so much depends on the ascertainment of what portion of the reserve was utilised as working capital, the principles of equity and justice demand that an Industrial Court must insist upon a clear proof of the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 Next