AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Falshaw, C.J.—The facts in this petition filed under Article 226 of the-Constitution by a company, Messrs Willcox (Buckwell-India) Ltd ; are that by an order dated the 8th of February 19/62 the Delhi Administration referred a dispute between the company and its workmen represented by the Willcox. Employees Union to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of reference are given as, "Whether the workmen are entitled for payment of bonus equivalent to six months'' wages for the year 1960-61, and if so what should be the quantum and conditions for the payment of the same." In the course of the proceedings before Mr. A, N. Kaul, the sole Member of the Industrial Tribunal, the Union filed an application for clarification of certain items appearing in the company''s balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ending the 31st of March 1961 on the ground that this clarification was necessary in order that the Union could file the calculations on which its claim was based. The points on which more detailed information was required were itemised under headings (a) to (h). By its order dated the 7th of January 1963 the Tribunal has observed that while information was supplied by the company in respect of some of the items mentioned it had objected to give information on other points, but it was ordered to supply more detailed information on (1) salaries and wages ; (2) sundries; (3) repairs to buildings; (4) commission and (5) bad debts.
The order is challenged in the present petition on the ground that the Tribunal cannot call on the company to furnish the required details. On this point reliance is primarily placed, on two judgments of my own in Palace Cinema, Delhi v. Rameshwar Dayal, (1958) 2 Lab. L. J. 238 and Shama Magazine v. State of Delhi, (1958) 2 Lab. L. J. 241. In the first of these cases I held that the relevant provisions of the CPC must be complied with before any order is passed directing the workmen to inspect the firm''s accounts. In the second case I held, "The combined effect of Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 21 of the rules framed under the Act is that the Tribunal''s powers in relation to directing the production of documents by parties are strictly governed by the relevant provisions of the CPC under which inter alia a party can only be ordered to produce documents which are in its possession, or in its power, which evidently refers to existing documents which though not actually in the immediate possession of the party are readily available to it. It is therefore at once obvious that such parts of the demands of workmen in this case as involve the preparation of lists or abstracts of various kinds from existing records were improper demands and that these parts of the order of the Tribunal which directed the management to prepare and furnish such lists or abstracts were illegal." Reliance is also placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in The The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka Vs. Its Workmen and Another, at page 956 as follows:
The working of the formula begins with the figure of gross profits taken from the profit and loss account which are arrived at after payment of wages and dearness allowance to the employees and other items of expenditure. As a general rule the amount of gross profits thus ascertained is accepted without submitting the statement of the profits and loss account to a close scrutiny. If, however, it appears that entries had been made on the debit side deliberately and mala fide to reduce the amount of gross profits, it would be open to the Tribunal to examine the question and if it is satisfied that the impugned entries had been made mala fide it may disallow them. It would likewise be open to the parties to claim the exclusion of items either on the credit or debit side on the ground that the impugned items are wholly extraneous and entirely unrelated to the trading profits of the year. In considering such a plea the Tribunal must resist the temptation of dissecting the balance sheet too minutely or of attempting to reconstruct it in any manner.. It is only in glaring cases where the impugned item may be patently and obviously extraneous that a plea for its exclusion should be entertained. Where the employer makes profits in the course of carrying on hps trade or business, it would be unreasonable to enquire whether each one of the items of the said profits is related to the contribution made by labour. In such matters the Tribunal must take an overall, practical and commonsense view. Thus it may be stated that as a rule the gross profits appearing at the foot of the statement of the profit and loss account should be taken as the basic figure while working out the formula.
It seems to me that this quotation has not much bearing on the point which arises in this petition, its principles being applicable rather to the final award of the Tribunal regarding bonus than to the question of what matter is to be made available to the workmen in the prelimi-narystage in order to enable them to formulate their claim.
I now proceed to consider the five items on which information has b"en called for from the company. The application of the Union starts by questioning the validity of certain items of expenditure shown in the company''s balance sheet and profit and loss account and states that the Union cannot calculate its claim properly without further clarification on these points. Under heading (a) ''Salaries, Wages'', ''Bonus'' the. company is asked to split up the amount shown under ''Salaries'' Wages into two, namely wages and salaries paid to officer staff above the grade of Assistant and wages and salaries paid to all categories of workmen up to the grade of Assistant. A request is also made for particulars of the amount of bonus included under this head together with the year to which the payment rentes. On this the Tribunal has ordered the management to file a statement showing the average monthly wage bill of only those employees who fall within the definition of ''workman''.
Item (b) in the Union''s application refers to the item ''Sundries ............ Rs. 92,983-46 nP '' under the general heading ''Agency Expenses''in the profit and loss account, the corresponding figure for the previous year being Rs. 32,391/-. An explanation for this is asked for by the Union in the light of the fact that there is no corresponding increase in turnover and profits. The Tribunal has asked for details of what items are comprised under the sub-head ''Sundries''.
Item (e) in the Union''s application refer to the sum of Rs. 27,881-44 nP. shown in the profit and loss account on account of repairs to building as compared with Rs. 4,512/-in the previous year. Further particulars are sought in order to find out whether this expenditure is on account of ordinary repairs or its really a capital expenditure, and the Tribunal has asked for the nature of repairs to building to be shown in broad sub-heads so far as possible.
Item (f) in the Union''s application refers to ''Commission'' shown in the profit and loss account as Rs. 65,000/- odd as compared with Rs. 17000/- odd in the previous year. The Tribunal has asked for particulars of commission paid particularly to the State Trading Corporation of India and any other big concerns.
The only other order of the Tribunal refers to item (g), a sum of Rs. 15,819-83 np. written off on account of bad debts in the profit and loss account as against Rs. 484/- in the previous year, and the Tribunal has asked for a break up of this amount.
As regards the two decisions of my own, the point, which arises in the first one does not at this stage arise in the present case the facts of which bear more resemblance to those in the Shama Magazine''s case, (1958) 2 Lab. L. J. 241. Although I still see no reason to doubt the correctness of the proposition of law laid down therein that an Industrial Tribunal cannot, any more than a civil Court can, call for the production of documents other than those in the possession of a party or available to it and cannot ask for the preparation of statements in the form of abstracts or lists compiled from original documents, I also still adhere to the observations which I made on page 243 of the report as follows ;
At the same time I cannot help observing that even after proper reconsideration of points involved much of the material which is now sought by the workmen in this case will probably have to be admitted in some form or other and it may well be that the management in this case may find it more convenient to perpare lists or abstracts even if they cannot be compelled to do so than to produce all the records and registers from which such documents could the prepared.
It surely cannot occasion much trouble to the company in the present case to furnish the details called for regarding wages of those of its employees who fall within the definition of ''workman'' or to throw some light on the nature of the items covered by the not inconsiderable sum of Rs. 92,000/- odd lumped under the head of sundries and the same is the case regarding the other items. A formula has been envol-ved by the Courts, and approved by the Supreme Court, for the calculation of bonus which can be legitimately claimed by the workmen, and the principle is clearly established by the decisions that if any deductions are introduced into the profit and loss account by a company mala fide so as to reduce the amount available for-bonus, the Tribunal is entitled to add such sums back for the purpose of calculation. It seems to me that unless the workmen in this case are given some inkling, for instance what is covered by the item of Rs. 92,000/- odd headed ''Sundries'' they are not in a position to formulate their claim, and surely it is better that before they start making definite allegations that such item has been introduced mala fide they should ask for some enlightenment so that they can decide whether to attack the item or not.
The other matters I regard as of less importance and I cannot understand the reluctance of the company to reveal the details asked for. In the circumstances I do not feel inclined to interfere and dismiss the petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.