# WORKMEN v. MANAGEMENT OF SIJUA (JHERRIAH) ELECTRIC SUPPLY .CO. LTD

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 760
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-09-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2446 & 2447 of 1967
- **Bench:** P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S. N. Dwivedi, P. K. Goswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-v-management-of-sijua-jherriah-electric-supply-co-ltd-6027
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Bonus Act-Three items, the rebate payable to consumers under Electricity
Supply Act 1948, Development Rebate and Develop1n~nt Reserve under Income
Tax Act 1961, whether to be deducted from profits for the
purpose of ascertaining bonus.
The dispute between the respondent company and the workmen arose in
respect of the permissible additions and deductions to b~ made to the profits
for the piirpose of ascertaining the bonus payable to the workmen under the
provisions of the 'Bonus Act.
The controversy between the Company and its
\Vorkmen was in relation to three items mentioned in the profit and loss account
which were also the ::;ubject ;natter of the reference. The first item related to
a sun1 representing the rebate payable to the consumers under paragraph II ( 1)
of the VJ Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act 1948. The second one related
to a sum on account of Development Rebate under Income Tax Act 1961 and
the third one related to a sum in respect of Development Reserve. The appellants, however, challenged the first and the ~iro:i items before this Court.
Partly allowing the appeal,
HELD : (i) The computation and payment of bonus
under the
Bonus
Act is provided on unit-wise basis in accordance with the formula laid down
under the· Act.
Jn the present case, the payment of bonus is related to the
. profits of the year subject to the maximum bonus and the amount available by
way of set-on.
As the Company is not a Banking Company, the methOd of
cori1putation of gross profits is laid down in the I[ Schedule of Bonus Act.
S. 6 enumerates the deductions that have to be made out of the gross profits in
order to arrive at the available surplus.
The sums liable to be deducted from gross profits under Section 6 are : (a)
Any amount by way of depreciation according to s. 32 ( 1) of the Income Tax
Act or accordin.e: to the provisions of the Agricultural Income-T_ax law.
(b > Any amount by waY of development rebate which the employer is entitled to deduct from his income.
(c) Any direct tax which the employer is Jiabl~ to pay, and
( 4) Sμch further sums as specified in respect of the employer in the 3rd
Schedule etc.
The appellants contended that rebate payable to the consumers cannot be
deducted so as to reduce the net profit share in the profit and loss
account. [764G-765G]
(ii) AccordiJg to the workmen, a rebate payabie to the co?sumers of
electricity cannot be deducted so as to reduce the net profit shown m the profit
and loss account because entry 1 of the second Schedule to the Bonus Act is
''not profit as μ·er profit and lo.ss accoun.t". Para. Il(l) of the VISchedul~ to
the Electricity Supply Act provides that if the clear profi~ ?f a ~1censee exceeds
the amount of reasonable return, the excess hks to be d1VIded mto three equal
portions and one portion has to be given as a rebate. t.o the
consumers. If
rebate iy given to the consumers in respect of the ~l~tnc1ty consumed by the.m,
and for which payment has already. been made, 1t ~s. apparent that the wice
of electricity which the consumers wdl pay a~t~r rece1v1ng the rebate, would be
the actual price paid by them for the electr1c1ty consumed. Therefore,
any
-amount in the hands of the undertaking. liable to ~e returned to the consumers
as rebate cannot b~ taken into account 10 computing. the gross pro1its of the
B
I
F·
R
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
WORKMEN V. SIJUA ELECTRIC CO.
761
undertaking.
Jt is only after deducting this amount that the actual revenue of
~be undertaking could be computed.
Therefore, the amount to ht: returned as
rebate to the consumers is a d.eductible item. [766B]
Poona Electric Supply Ltd. v. C./.T. Bombay, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 878 and
Jabalpur Bijilighar KarJnachari Pa.'1.chayat v. J:1balpur Electric
Supply
Coin·
pany Ltd. and 4.notlzer [1972] 1 S.C.R. 60, referred to.
·
(iii) :\s regards the sum of tlie development reserve
which the
work.n1en
disputed, and which was deducted under item 6 of the Ill Schedule to the Bonus
Act, it appears from the Affidavit filed in the Hig

## Text

760
WORKMEN
v.
MANAGEMENT OF SIJUA (JHERRIAH)
ELECTRIC SUPPLY .CO. LTD.
September 25, 1973
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DWIVEDI AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
Bonus Act-Three items, the rebate payable to consumers under Electricity
Supply Act 1948, Development Rebate and Develop1n~nt Reserve under Income
Tax Act 1961, whether to be deducted from profits for the
purpose of ascertaining bonus.
The dispute between the respondent company and the workmen arose in
respect of the permissible additions and deductions to b~ made to the profits
for the piirpose of ascertaining the bonus payable to the workmen under the
provisions of the 'Bonus Act.
The controversy between the Company and its
\Vorkmen was in relation to three items mentioned in the profit and loss account
which were also the ::;ubject ;natter of the reference. The first item related to
a sun1 representing the rebate payable to the consumers under paragraph II ( 1)
of the VJ Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act 1948. The second one related
to a sum on account of Development Rebate under Income Tax Act 1961 and
the third one related to a sum in respect of Development Reserve. The appellants, however, challenged the first and the ~iro:i items before this Court.
Partly allowing the appeal,
HELD : (i) The computation and payment of bonus
under the
Bonus
Act is provided on unit-wise basis in accordance with the formula laid down
under the· Act.
Jn the present case, the payment of bonus is related to the
. profits of the year subject to the maximum bonus and the amount available by
way of set-on.
As the Company is not a Banking Company, the methOd of
cori1putation of gross profits is laid down in the I[ Schedule of Bonus Act.
S. 6 enumerates the deductions that have to be made out of the gross profits in
order to arrive at the available surplus.
The sums liable to be deducted from gross profits under Section 6 are : (a)
Any amount by way of depreciation according to s. 32 ( 1) of the Income Tax
Act or accordin.e: to the provisions of the Agricultural Income-T_ax law.
(b > Any amount by waY of development rebate which the employer is entitled to deduct from his income.
(c) Any direct tax which the employer is Jiabl~ to pay, and
( 4) Sμch further sums as specified in respect of the employer in the 3rd
Schedule etc.
The appellants contended that rebate payable to the consumers cannot be
deducted so as to reduce the net profit share in the profit and loss
account. [764G-765G]
(ii) AccordiJg to the workmen, a rebate payabie to the co?sumers of
electricity cannot be deducted so as to reduce the net profit shown m the profit
and loss account because entry 1 of the second Schedule to the Bonus Act is
''not profit as μ·er profit and lo.ss accoun.t". Para. Il(l) of the VISchedul~ to
the Electricity Supply Act provides that if the clear profi~ ?f a ~1censee exceeds
the amount of reasonable return, the excess hks to be d1VIded mto three equal
portions and one portion has to be given as a rebate. t.o the
consumers. If
rebate iy given to the consumers in respect of the ~l~tnc1ty consumed by the.m,
and for which payment has already. been made, 1t ~s. apparent that the wice
of electricity which the consumers wdl pay a~t~r rece1v1ng the rebate, would be
the actual price paid by them for the electr1c1ty consumed. Therefore,
any
-amount in the hands of the undertaking. liable to ~e returned to the consumers
as rebate cannot b~ taken into account 10 computing. the gross pro1its of the
B
I
F·
R
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
WORKMEN V. SIJUA ELECTRIC CO.
761
undertaking.
Jt is only after deducting this amount that the actual revenue of
~be undertaking could be computed.
Therefore, the amount to ht: returned as
rebate to the consumers is a d.eductible item. [766B]
Poona Electric Supply Ltd. v. C./.T. Bombay, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 878 and
Jabalpur Bijilighar KarJnachari Pa.'1.chayat v. J:1balpur Electric
Supply
Coin·
pany Ltd. and 4.notlzer [1972] 1 S.C.R. 60, referred to.
·
(iii) :\s regards the sum of tlie development reserve
which the
work.n1en
disputed, and which was deducted under item 6 of the Ill Schedule to the Bonus
Act, it appears from the Affidavit filed in the High Court by the Company Iha\
the particulars of development reserve incurred in preceding 4 years
inc_luded
the year 1964-65. According to tho:: workmen, only a sum of Rs. 10,555,- being
the proportionate development reserve c:Uculated on the development rebate for
the year 1964-65 was permissible, hut no addition could be made for the proportionate development t;eserve in respect of the years
1961-62, 1962-63, and
1%3-64 and as under the proviso to Sub-Paragraph (i) of Paragraph 5-A of
the VI Schedule to the Act, ··reasonable return had to be
provided for the
company" in each year \Vhich could not be provided because there was nu &Ufficient fund available for development reserve from 1961-62 to 1963-64.
All
the sums which should have been appropriated in the years of account preccdi~ the year in question, were appropriated in the year 1964-65.
Item 6
of
the 111 Schedule to the Bonus Act provides that any
"employer falling under
item No. I, 3, 4 and 5 etc., in addition to the sums deductible under any of the
aforesaid items such itelll'> as are required to be appropriated by the licencee in
respect of the accounting year to a reserve, under the Sixth Schedule to that
Act, -shall also be deducted."
The words, 'required to be appropriated" indicate that· the Company should be obliged under the Sixth Schedule to appropriate
an amount to the development reserve funds. Tht words "in respect o['' have
a wide connotation. The first requirement for the applicability of item 6 of the
Sixth Schedule to the Act is a legal obligation on the company to appropriate
the amount to the development reserve fund.
The second requirement is that
the appropriation made must be connected with or related to the
accounting
year. [767 D-F; 768 F-H]
(iv) Sub-paras (!) and (2) of paragraph V-\ of the Act provides that
there shall be a Development Reserve to which shall b~ appropriated in respect
of each accounting year, a sum equal to the amount of Income-tax and ·super4
tax etc., provided that if in any accounting year, a clear profit etc., falls short
of the reasonable return. the sutr. to be appropriated
to the Development
Reserve in respect of such accounting year shaU be reduced by the amount of
the short fall, and under sub para (2), any such amount may be appropriated
in annual instalments spread over a period not exceeding five years. [769C]
( v) The words .. that accounting year'' refer to the year of account in respect of which appropriation to the Res·erve and the deduction under the Bonus
Act is being considered. In the present case, the deductions for the years
196Hi2, 1962-63 and 1963-64 are not being considered, nor have &ere been
any appropriations in terms of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Act
in the respective accounting years.
There is nothing in sub-paragraphs (1) or
(2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedu1e to the Act w!iich justifies the sub·
mission that what has .not been appropriated for the earlier years could
be
appropriated in the year of account.
In this view, the only amount that is
deductible on account of development reserve as contended by the appellants is
Rs. 10,555/- in respect of the accounting year 1964-65. [770A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2446 & 2447
of 1967.
·
From the Judgment and Order dated the 26•h March, 1968 of the
Patna High Conrt ir. C.W.J.C. Nos. 121and137 of 1967.
A. B. N. Sinha and A . K. Nag, for the appellants.
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J 1 s.c.R.
LaJ Narain Sinha, Solicitor General of India, Alok Kumar Verma
and B. P. Singh, for respondent No. 1.
R. C. Prasad, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.
The Management of Sijua (Jherriah)
Electric Supply Company Ltd.-the respondents-had initially offered
only 4 per cent. bonus to all the employees of its establishmem because
the allocable surplus which was available was less than 4 per .cent.
Subsequently, having regard to the decision of the Madras High Court
it revised the calculations of allocable surplus and offered to distribute
to its employees under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter
termed 'the Bonus Act'), a sum of Rs. 34,492/-.
The workmen
(Appellants) refused to accept this amount as the management had
·failed to furnish the details or the basis of computing the
amount
which was being offered to them.
A dispute was thus raised, and it
Was referred to ~onciliation. It appears that during these conciliation
proceedings, both the parties agreed to the following terms of settlement:
"(!) The Union agree to accept the present offer of the
management· purely on provisional basis without prejudice
to their claim for higher bonus for the year 1964-65.
The
management agree to distribute this amount
as early as
possible.
(2) Both the parties agree to refer to the
Industrial
Tribunal for adjudication the following points of difference
in respect of calculation of available/Surplus for the year
1964-65 to settle the issue of payment of bonus for that year.
(a) Whether a sum of Rs. 18,086/- provided for in the
profit and loss account as provision for rebate to consumers in accordance with 6th Schedule of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 should be added back to
arrive at the gross profit for the said accounting year
in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act ? If
so, whether this amount should also be deducted
from the gross profit to arrive at available surplus ?
( b) Whether deduction of following amounts from
the
gross profit is in accordance with the provisions of
the Payment of Bonus Act.
(i) Rs. 23,455/- on account of development rebate·
allowable under the Income-tax Act.
(ii) Rs. 35,682/-
on
account
of
development
reserve."
Pursuant to the above agreement, the Governor of Bihar referred
for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal the disputes refer~ed to in
sub-clauses (a), (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of clause (2) of the said agreement.
Before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the amount in sub-clause (a) of the reference cannot be
-deducted from the gross porfits because it is a rebate to consumers and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
a
c
D
F
G
WORKMEN v. SiJUA ELECTRIC co. (Jaganmohan Reddy,/.)
763
is paid from out of profits.
It CljllllOt, therefore, be shown in tho
revenue accounts of the company as an item of expenditure and must
be added back for the purpose of calculation of bonus.
In respect of
the amount in sub-clause (b) (i) of the reference the contention is that
it cannot be deducted as a rebate and if it has to be deducted, it has to
be added back also. It was lastly contended in respect of the amount
in sub-clause (b) (ii) of the reference that the deduction is not contemplated by item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act.
On January 16, 1967, the Tribunal gave the following award :-
(1) In respect of the sum of Rs. 18,086/- it held-
(a) that although the aforesaid
sum
represented
the
amount of rebate payable to the consumers and not
to be retained by the company, .none-the-less it was
a profit for the purpose o; computation in order to
arrive at the amount which the workers should get as
bonus;
(b) that the aforesaid amount of Rs.
18,086/-
which
has been retained by the management to be returned
to the consumers later ou, must be taken as a reserve
within the meaning of Item 2 ( e)
of the
Second
Schedule of the Bonus Act, 1965, and has
to be
added back; a,nd
(c) that the sum of Rs. 18,086/- which was deemed to
be a reserve and had to be added back under item
2 ( e) of the Second Schedule of the Bonus Act was
not an amount to be deducted as a reserve
under
s. 6(d) of the Bonus Act and, therefore, could not
be deducted for the purposes of the computation of
profits for payment of bonus.
(2) That in regard to the amount of Rs. 23,455/-
the
Tribunal held that merely because the company has,
for
some reason or the other, omitted to mention the aforesaid
amount in the profit and loss account that would not prevent
the
same
being
added
back particularly
when
the
same is being claimed as deduction under the provisions of
the Bonus Act.
Accordingly it came to the conclusion that
the deduction of Rs. 23,455/- on account of the development
reb"te allowed under the Income-tax Act from' the
gross
profits without adding back to it is not in accordance with the
Bonus Act.
(3) In so far as the sum of Rs. 35,682/-
which has
been both added arrd deducted, the Tribunal held that the
amount has been rightly deducted under clause (d) of s. 6
of the Bonus Act for the purpose of arriving at the available
surplus.
"
By a writ petition the respondents challenged the validity of the
aw~r.d which -was against . t~em. and the workmen by a separate writ
pet1t10n cont,ested the vahdtty of the award which was against them.
The High Court which heard both these petitions together came to the
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 ·s.c.&.
A
conclusion that the decision of the Tribunal on item '(1) (a) of the
reference directing the respondents to add back Rs. 18,086/- for calculating the gross profits was wrong and it was accordingly quashed.
The remaining portion of the award which disallowed the deduction
of the said sum from the gross profits wa> maintained.
As regards
item (b) (i) of the reference relating to the sum of Rs. 23,455/- shown
as development rebate, it held that the portion of the award which
directed that it should be added back to the net profits to calculate the
gross profits under clause (2) (d) of the Second Schedule of the Bonus
Act was also wrong ~nd it was accordingly quashed.
In respect of
the award on clause (b) (ii) of the reference it maintained the award
of the Tribunal.
In the result of respondents' petition was al:owed
and the appellants' petition dismissed.
B
Against the aforesaid decision, these appeals are by certificate
granted by the High Court.
The dispute between the company and the workmen, as already
stated, arose in respect of the permissible additions and deductions to
be made to the profits for the purpose of ascertaining the· bonus payable to the workmen under the provisions of the Bonus Act.
'Qie
balance-sheet of the company for the year ending March 31, 1965,
showing the profit and loss account was duly published, and there was
a controversy between the company and its workmen as regards three
items mentioned in the profit and loss account which were also the
subject-matter of the reference.
The first item related to a sum of
Rs. 18,086/- representing the rebate payable to the consumers under
paragraph Il(i) of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948-hereinafter called 'the Electricity. (Supply) Act'; the
second
one related to a sum of Rs. 23,455 /- on account of development
rebate allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961; and the third one
related to a sum of Rs. 35,682/- in respect of development reserve.
The learned Advocate for the appellants, however, at the outset
indicated that he was not challenging the decision of the High Court
in respect of the second item of Rs. 23,455/- deducted under the
Income-tax Act, 1961, as development rebate. This leaves the first
and the third items, one in respect of Rs. 18,086/- which has been
directed by the High Court to be deducted on account of rebate payable to the consumers under Paragraph II(i) of the Sixth .Schedule to
the Electricity (Supply) Act, and ·the third item in respect of
Rs. 35,682/- on account of development reserve.
·
D
:E
It may be mentioned tbat the computation and payment of bonus
,i;;
under the Bonus Act is provided on unit-wise basis in accordance with
the formula laid down under that Aet. As far as this case is concerned, the payment of bonus is related to the profits of the year subject to
the maximum bonus· and amount available by way of set-on.
As the
company is not a banking company to which the First Schedule is
applicable, the method of computation of gross profits is laid down in
the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act.
Section 6 enumerates the ,J.I
deductions that have to be made out of the gross profits in order to
arrive at the available surplus.
The deductions consist of depreciation, clevelopment rebate, direct taxes and items mentioned in the
.....
I
WORKMEN v. SIJUA ELECTRIC co. (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 765
A( Third Schedule. It may be observed that rehabilitatio&' grant is left
over as an item of deduction from gross profit, which is a departure
from what was required to be deducted under the Full Bench formula
of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
The amount of depreciation and
development rebate are to be arrived at as provided under the Incometax Act.
In case of depreciation, however, it one employer has been
n·•
'U"''
D
F'
ffl
paying bonus to his employees under an award, agreement, or settlement made before the commencement of the Bonus Act and subsisting
at such commencement after deducting from the gross profits, then the
depreciation deducted, at the option of the employer, shall
be
the
notional normal depreciation. Section 2 ( 4) defined "allocable surplus" as meaning "(a) in relation to an employer, being a company
(other than a banking company) which has not made the arrangements prescribed under the Income-tax Act for the declaration and
paynient within India of the dividends, payable out of its profits in
accordance with the provisions of Section 194 of that Act, sixty-seven·
per cent, of the available surplus and includes any amount treated as
such under sub-section (2) of section 34." "Available surplus" is
defined in s. 2(6) as meaning "the available..surplus computed under
Section 5." Section 4 provides for computation of gross profits in the
manner provided by the First Schedule in the case of a banking company and in other cases in the manner provided by the Second Schedule.
By s. 5 the 'available surplus' in respect of any accounting year.
is the gross profit for that year after deducting therefrom the sums.
referred to in s. 6.
The sums liable to be deducted from gross profits under s. 6 are :
(a) any amount by way of depreciation admissible
in
accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (I) of s. 32
of the Income-tax Act or in accordalice with the provisions of the agricultural income-tax law, as the case
may be;
(b) any amount by way of development rebate or development allowance which the employer is entitled to
deduct from his income under the Income Tax Act;
( c) any direct tax which the employer is liable to pay
for the accounting year in respect of his
income
prnfits and gains during that year; and
'
(d) such further sums as are specified in respect of the
employer in the Third Schedule
. Counsel for the workmen says that the Company has shown a certam amount as its net profit in the profit and loss account.
Rebate
payable to the consumers of electricity cannot be deducted so as to
re4uce the net profit shown in the profit and loss account, because
entry I of the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act is "net profit as per
profit a11:d loss account''. It may be mentioned that Paragraph JI (i)
of t~~ Sixth Sch~dule to. the Electricity (Supply) Act provides that if
the clear profit of a licensee exceeds the amount of reasonable return: the excess ha~ to be divided into three equal portions.
One
_POrt10n has to be given as a rebate to the consumers· another portion
1s set apart as Tariffs and Dividends Control Resery~; and the third
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 ~.C.ll.
'
portion is kept apart for distribution as a proportionate rebate on the
amounts collected from the sale of electricity and meter ·rentals or
carried forward in the accounts of the licensee. for distribution to the
consumers ih future in such manner as the State Government may
direct.
A perusal of Paragraph II(i) of the Sixth Schedule to the
Electricity (Supply) Act would show that the portion that is .set apart
as a rebate to the consumers has not been described· as a reserve in
the same manner as the other portions have been described, for the
simple reason, that the amount has to be returned to the consumers
in the form of a rebate. If rebate is given to the consumers in respect
of the electricity consumed by them and for which
payment has
already been ma~e,. it is apparent that th~ price of .electricity which
the consumers will m ·fact pay, after · rece1V1ng the rebate, would be
the actual price ·paid by them for the electricity consumed.
To put
it d!!Ierently the charges paid by the consumers of electricity before
the rebate is given to them would be treated as payments on account
or provisional payments, and it is only after the end of the year when
rebate is ascertained and paid to them in accordance with the pro-·
visions of the Electricity (Supply) Act that the charges recovered for
supply of electricity couJd be said to be finalised. On this assumption
it would appear that any amount in the hands of the undertaking
liable to be returned to the consumers as rebate cannot be taken into
account in computing the gross profits of the undertaking. It is only
after deducting this amount that the
actual revenue of the' supply
undertaking could be computed. If this assumption is correct, and
we think it is, then the amount to be returned as rebate to the
consumers is a deductible item. We cannot accept the contention of
the learned Advocate that this item, not being an expenditure necessary
for earning a profit, is not deductible. The basic assumption underlying the contention that consumers' rebate has been deducted as an
expenditure has no val\dity. In Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay('), this Court, while dealing with
the Income-tax Act, considered
the effect of
Paragraph
II (i)
of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act and held that the
amounts set apart for rebate and for which deduction was claimed
were a part of the excess amount paid to the assessee company and
reserved for being returned to the consumers.
They did not form
part of the assessee's real profits and, therefore, to arrive at the taxable
income of the assessee
from the business under s. 10(1) of
the
Income-tax Act, the said amounts had to be deducted from its total
income.
Even thoμgh, this case was decided under the Income-tax
Act, the provisi~n' of the Electricity (Supply) Act which we have
interpreted was also interpreted by this Court in that case. In labal-
~·r· p;;r1~a1Cr-~m·li"r' Pa,,•havat v. Jabalpur Electric _Supply Co.
Ltd. & Anr.(•) the question was again considered by a Bench of this
Court to which one of u~ (Ja~anmohan Reddy. J.,) was a party. At
P. 75, it was observed by reference to what the Tribunal. had held:
"This goes to show that the rebate to the con,umers is
not to be utilised by the company except for distribution to
the consumers as may be directed. If the company cannot
(I) [1965] 3 S. C.R. 818.
(2) 11972] I S. C. R. 60.
B
c
D
•
E
F
•
G
D
.
f
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
WORKMEN v. SIJUA ELECTRIC co._ (laganmohan Reddy, J.) 767
have the. benefit of it, it stands to reason that the worker
cannot ask for a share and the claim of the appellant for
inclusion of this sum must be rejected."
In our view there is no doubt that the
amount
payable as
consumers' rebate under the Electricity (Supply) Act has to be deducted before profits oould be compulted and has been rightly held to be
deductible by the High Court.
The last item of reference is whether the sum of Rs. 35,682/-
can be legally appropriated by the licensee to the development· reserve
in respect of the accounting year 1964-65 and dec;lucfe\f under item
6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act. It appears that before
the High Court an affidavit was filed by the company which
gave
particulars of the break up of the development reserve of Rs. 35,682/-
as having been incurred in the four years including and preceding the
year 1964-65 for which the bonus was being considered.
The proportionate development reserve for the yea~ 1961-62 was Rs. 4,864/-;
for the year 1962-63 Rs. 1,671/-; for the year 1963-64 Rs. 18,602/-
and for the year 1964-65 Rs. 10,555/-. On behalf of the workmen
it was urged that only a sum of Rs. 10,555/- being the proportionate
development reserve calculated on the development rebate for the year
1964-65 was permissible, but no addition could be made for
the
proportionate development reserve in respect of the years 1961-62,
1962-63 and 1963-64.
The argument on behalf of the
company
which was accepted by the learned Judges of the High Court was
that the funds in the hands of the company did not permit of any
sum being appropriated as development reserve in the years 1961-62,
1962-63 and 1963-64, and as under the proviso to sub-paragraph
(1) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply)
Act "reasonable return had to be provided for the company". which
could not be provided because there. were.not sufficient funds available
for development reserve, all the sums which should have been appropriated in the years of account preceding the year in question were
appropriated in the ye_ar 1964-65 .. The High Court thought that the
development reserve had to be calculated for each year in the manner
indicated in sub-paragraph ( 1) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule
to the Electricity (Supply) Act, but the actual appropriation
may
be spread over a period of five years in order to ensure that the reason-·
able return to the licensee is not impaired.
Though normally the
"annual instalments" specified in
sub-paragraph (2) of
paragraph
VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act may indicate
that -some amount must be appropriated every year, but on a strict
construction of sub-paragraph (2) along with the proviso to sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph VA, it was of the view that in order to secure
a reasonable return, no amount may be available for appropriation to
the development reserve in some years, and that in such contingencies,
there seems to be no legal bar if the instalments for some of the years
are reduced to zero, and the entire sum is appropriated in a succeeding
year, provided that the maximum period of five years is not exceeded.
It was also pointed out by the learned Judges that the actual language
used by the Legislature in item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus
Act shows that any sum which is "required to be appropriated by the
9-392Sup Cl/74
76.8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J 1 s.c.R.
licensee in respect of the accounting year to a reserve under the Sixth
Schedule to that Act shall also be deducted" showed that the emphasis
was on the sum "required to be appropriated" in respect of
the
accounting year and not the sum calculated in respect of the accounting
. year. Hence, the various sums calculated as· development reserve
for preceding years also, if permitted by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act to
be appropriat<;_d in the accounting year 1964-65 will come within the
scope of item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act and hence
deductible.
The arguments before us have also followed the same contentions
which found favour with the High Court, but, in our view,
those
contentions are not supported by the language of item 6 of the Third
Schedule to the Bonus Act.
That item is as follows :
Item
Category of employer
No.
6
Any employer falling under Item No. I
or Item No. 3 or Item No 4 or Item No. 5
and being a licensee witliin the meaning of
the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
Further sums to be deducted
In additon to the sums deduc~
tible
under any of
the
aforesaid Items,
shch
sums as are required to
be appropriated by
the
licensee in respect of the
accounting vear to a re·
serve under the Sixth
Schedule to that Act shall
also be deducted (emphasis
added).
The Yiew of the High Court would have been corerct, if the words
in Item 6 were "such sums as are appropriated by the licensee in the
accounting year to a reserve under the Sixth Schedule to that Act."
If these words were there, it may be that the allocations of development reserve in respect of the previous years iu the accounting year
would have also become deductible.
But the High Court has overlooked the expressions "required to be appropriated . . . . under the
Sixth Sc.hedule to that Act" ana "in respect of". The words "required
to be apPropriated" indicate that the Company should be obligated
under tlie'.Sixth Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act to appropriate
an aiponnt to the dev~lopment reserve funds. The words "in respect
of" h:~ve. a wide connotation and being colourless are generally
intended ·to convey a connection or relation between the two subject
matters to which they refer. In the context in which tb.ey have been
used, they mean "connected with" or "relating to". The first requirement for the applicability of Item 6 of the Sixth Schedule to
the
Ele.ctricity (Supply) Act should, therefore, be a legal obligation on
the Compru;iy to appropriate an amount to the development reserve
fund.
Thi'°' second requirement is that the appropriation made must
be connected with or related to the accounting year. Clause 5 (a) (i)
of the $ixth Schedule to that Act also speaks of appropriation to the
development reserve "in respect of each and every accounting year".
The phrase "accounting year" does npt appear to have been defined
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
WORKMEN v. SIJUA ELECTRIC co. (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
769
in that Act. Instead, the expression "the year of account" is defined
in s. 2(14) of that Act. It means the financial year in relation to
a licelll'ee. The expression "accounting year" has been defined in
s. 2(1) of the Bonus Act.
~n respect of the Company, it would mean
''the periocl in respect of which any vrofit and loss account of the
Company laid before it in annual general meeting i3 made up, whether
that period is a year or not." The Company prepared its profit and
loss account in 1964-65. So for purposes of Item 6 in the Third
schedule, the accounting year of the Company would be 1964-65.
Section 5 of the Bonus Act provides that the available surplus "in
respect of any acounting year" shall be the gross profits for that year,
after deducting therefrom the sums referred to in section 6. The amount
which could be deducted is the amount which is required to be approJlriated by the licensee in respect of the accountmg year 1964"65.
A reference to sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph VA of the
Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act does not justify the
submission that the sums which could have been appropriated for the.
years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 were the amounts required to
be appropriated in the ac~ounting year 1964-65. Parai;raph VA, in
our view, deals only with appro\)riation to a development reserve for
the year of account, which in this case would be 1964-65, and if in
that year the whole of the development reserve could not be appropriated to the reserve, sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph VA permits
the apropriation in annual instalments spread over a period
not
exceeding five _years from the commencement of that accounting year.
Sub-paragraphs (1) and '(2) of paragraph VA of the Electricity
(Supply) Act which are relavant are as follows :
"VA.
(1) There shall be created a reserve to be called
the Development Reserve to which shall be appropriated
in respect of each accounting year a sum equal to the amount
of income-tax and super-tax calculated at rates applicable
during the assessment year for which the accounting year
of the licensee is the previous year, on the amount of
development rebate to which the licensee is. eniitled for the
accounting year under clause (vi) (b) of sub-section
(2)
of section 10 of- the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Provided, that 'if in any accounting year, the clear profit
r excluding the special appropriation to be made under item
Iva) of clause (c) of sub-paragraph
(2) of paragraph
XVII] together with the accumulations, if any, in t!Je Tariffs
and Dividends Control Reserve less' the sum calculated as
aforesaid falls short of the reasonable return, the sum to be
appropriated to the Development Reserve in respect of such
accounting year shall be reduced by the amount of the
short-fall.
(2) Any sum to· be appropriated towards the Deveiopment Reserve in respect of any accounting year under subparagraph ( 1), may be appropriated in annual instalments
spread over a period not exceeding five years
from the
commencement of th;it accounting year."
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J ~ s.c.R.
As 'we have noticed earlier, the words "that accounting year" refer
to the year of account in respect of which appropriation to the reserve
and the deduction under the Bonus Act is being considered. In this
case, the deductions for the year 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 are
not being considered, nor have there been any appropriations in terms
of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply)
Act in the respective accounting years.
There is -nothing ih
subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to
the Electricity (Supply) Act which justifies the submission that what
has not been appropriated for the earlier year could be appropriated
in the year of account. In this view, the only amount that is deductible on account of development reserve as contended by the appellants is Rs. 10,555/- in respect of the accounting year 1964-65.
The award of the Tribunal and the judgment of the High
Court
directing the deduction of Rs. 35,682/- cannot be sustained and are set
aside. Instead we direct the deduction of Rs. 10,555/- only.
The result is that the appeals are partly allowed, but in the circumstances each party will bear their own costs.
s.c.
Appeals partly al!owed.
A
B
c