{"id":183722,"date":"1959-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959"},"modified":"2016-05-28T00:17:52","modified_gmt":"2016-05-27T18:47:52","slug":"crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959","title":{"rendered":"Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 1089, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 936<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCROMPTON PARKINSON (WORKS) PRIVATELTD., BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nITS WORKMEN AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n06\/05\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nDAS, S.K.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR 1089\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (2) 936\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1960 SC 819\t (14)\n RF\t    1969 SC 612\t (23)\n\n\nACT:\n Industrial   Dispute-Bonus-Gross Profits-Expenditure,\twhen\nmay be disallowed-Service Fee-Whether allowable expenditure-\nAvailable Surplus-Bonus, deducted as prior  charge-Propriety\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nInitially the appellant was a 100% subsidiary of the British\ncompany,  Crompton  Parkinson  Ltd.  In\t 1947  an  agreement\ncalled \" Technical Aid Agreement \" was concluded between the\ntwo companies under which the appellant agreed to pay to the\nparent\tcompany 5% Of the net value of its sales every\tyear\nas  service  fee  for the use of  their\t patterns,  valuable\ndesigns,  technical aid, benefit of research  and  ancillary\nservices  and  facilities.  As the  appellant  obtained\t the\nbenefit\t of  the parent company's  technical  knowledge\t and\nresearch   it\tdid  not  maintain   a\t separate   research\nestablishment on which it would otherwise have had to  spend\nfar  more than the service fee it paid.\t The  agreement\t had\nreceived  the  approval of the\tGovernment;  the  income-tax\nauthorities  had,  every year, allowed the  service  fee  as\nlegitimate  expenditure ; and the remittances to the  parent\ncompany\t had been sanctioned by the Reserve Bank  of  India.\nIn  the\t claim for bonus by the workmen,  the  Tribunal,  in\ncalculating  the  gross profits, pruned down  the  allowable\nexpenditure  on account of the service fee to one fourth  on\nthe  grounds  that  the\t amount\t of  service  fee  paid\t was\nexcessive   and\t beyond\t the  requirements   of\t  commercial\nnecessity  and that a large part of the payment was  in\t the\nnature of capital expenditure.\tIn calculating the available\nsurplus the Tribunal deducted as a first charge 4 1\/2 months\nbasic  wages  as  bonus before\tdeducting  depreciation\t and\nincome-tax contrary to the terms of the Full Bench formula.\nHeld,  that the entire amount of service fee paid  ought  to\nhave  been  allowed as proper expenditure.   Unless  it\t was\ndefinitely  found that a purported expenditure was  sham  or\nhad  been  made with the express object\t of  minimising\t the\nprofits\t with a view to deprive the workmen of their  bonus,\nthe  Tribunal  could not substitute its own judgment  as  to\nwhat was or was not commercially justified in place of\tthat\nof  the appellant and its directors.  The service fee was  a\ngenuine\t expenditure and represented a\tbinding\t contractual\nobligation  which  could  legally be  enforced\tagainst\t the\nappellant  and\ta  breach  thereof  may\t have  had   serious\nconsequences affecting its business.\nHeld further, that the Tribunal acted wrongly in deducting\n937\nbonus as a prior charge even before the recognised items  of\nprior charges.\tSuch departures from the Full Bench  Formula\nby Tribunals were to be deprecated.\nAssociated  Cement Companies Ltd. v. Its Workmen, C.A.\tNos.<\/a>\n459 and 460 of 1957, decided on 5-5-59, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 756 &\t 757
\nof 1957.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby  special leave from the Award  dated\t January  8,
\n1957,  of  the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in\t1.  T.\tRef.
\nNos. 109 and 147 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t  Daphtary,  Solicitor-General\tof  India,   Y.\t  A.
\nPalkhivala and S. N. Andley, for the appellant.
\nRajani Patel and Janardan Sharma, for the respondents.
\n1959.  May 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDAS,  C.  J.-These  are appeals by special  leave  filed  by
\nCrompton   Parkinson  (Works)  Private\t Ltd.\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to as the company) against that part of the  award
\nmade  in  References (IT) Nos. 109 and 147 of  1956  by\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal,  Bombay,\ton January  8,\t1957,  which
\nconcerns  the  demand  of  its workmen\tfor  bonus  for\t the
\ncompany’s financial year 1954-55.  That award was  published
\nin  the\t Bombay Government Gazette of January 17,  1957,  in
\nPart IL at pages 351-364.\n<\/p>\n
The  material facts and circumstances leading upto the\tsaid
\naward,\tas  they appear from the evidence placed  on  record
\nbefore the Tribunal, may shortly be stated as follows:-\t The
\ncompany\t was  incorporated in India in the year\t 1937.\t The
\nregistered  office  of\tthe  company  is  at  Bombay.\t The
\nauthorised  capital  of the company is Rs. 75  lacs  divided
\ninto  75,000 ordinary shares of the value of Rs.  100  each.
\nOut of the authorised capital, shares of the value of Rs. 60
\nlacs  have been issued, subscribed and fully paid.   At\t its
\ninception the company was 100% subsidiary of the well  known
\nBritish\t company named Crompton Parkinson Ltd.\t(hereinafter
\ncalled the Parent company).  In 1937
\n938<\/span>
\nthe  company  commenced\t its business which was\t and  is  to
\nmanufacture  electrical\t equipment  such  as   transformers,
\nmotors, fans, starters and switch gears and to sell the same
\nin   the   market.   All  the  goods,  which   the   company
\nmanufactures,  are  manufactured wholly in  accordance\twith
\npatterns,  designs, specifications and\ttechnical  processes
\ndeveloped  by and belonging to the Parent company which\t the
\nlatter\tmakes  available  to  the  company.   The  company’s
\nproducts are sold under the trade names and marks  belonging
\nto  the\t Parent company, namely, ” Crompton Parkinson  “,  ”
\nCrompton  “, ” Parkinson ” and ” C. P. “. Between  1937\t and
\n1947 the company’s business is said to have been in a  stage
\nof  development\t and progress and it is\t admitted  that\t the
\nParent\tcompany made no charge for the several services\t and
\nfacilities  given by it to the company.\t In the\t year  1947,
\nafter the company’s business had been established on a\tfirm
\nfooting,   an  agreement  was  concluded  between  the\t two
\ncompanies in order to provide, on a long term basis, for the
\ncontinuance  of\t the technical assistance  and\tservice\t and
\nother facilities afforded by the Parent company on which the
\ncompany was wholly dependent.  That agreement, which is said
\nto be of a type commonly executed between the  manufacturing
\nand  industrial\t concerns  in  India  and  their  respective
\nassociates, parents or affiliates abroad and generally known
\nas ” Technical Aid Agreements ” is said to have received the
\napproval   of  the  Government\tof  India  to  promote\t the
\nindustrial  development of the country.\t That agreement\t was
\nactually executed on August 12, 1947, and provided that\t for
\na period of 20 years the Parent company would render to\t the
\ncompany various facilities and services, including,  amongst
\nothers, the following :\n<\/p>\n
(1) the use of the latest designs, manufacturing information
\nand production methods discovered and developed by  Crompton
\nParkinson Ltd.;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the  fullest  information\tand advice as  to  the\tmost
\nsuitable   machine  tools  and\tproduction   machinery\t and
\nequipment and as to the correct operation and use thereof;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  the supply at cost of machinery, equipment,,
\n939<\/span>
\nraw materials and manufacturing parts.\tUnder this  facility
\nthe  appellants\t obtain the benefit of bulk  purchase  terms
\nunder  which  Crompton\tParkinson Ltd.\tpurchase  their\t raw
\nmaterials;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) the benefit of the knowledge and experience of Crompton
\nParkinson  Ltd.’s  executive  in  all  matters\trelating  to
\ntechnical, mechanical and financial management;\n<\/p>\n
(v)  the  service of the Crompton Parkinson  Ltd.’s  experts
\nand technical personnel;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) facilities\t for training of selected employees  of\t the
\npetitioners in Crompton Parkinson Ltd.’s Works, and\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\t  licence  to  use on the appellants’  products\t the
\nworld-famous trademarks, “Crompton Parkinson”, ” Crompton “,
\n” Parkinson ” and ” C. P. ” belonging to Crompton  Parkinson
\nLimited.”\n<\/p>\n
In  lieu  of  all royalties, licence  fees  and\t other\tcon-
\nsiderations  usually allowed for services and facilities  of
\nthis  kind, the company agreed to pay to the Parent  company
\nservice fee calculated at the rate of 5% of the net value of
\nthe  sales made by the company from year to year.   For\t the
\nyear  1954-55  the company had actually paid the  amount  of
\nservice fee and the same, after deducting the Indian income-
\ntax, had been remitted to the Parent company.  Shortly after
\nthe  execution of the aforesaid agreement, 26% of shares  of
\nthe  company  were acquired by Messrs.\tGreaves\t Cotton\t Co.
\nLtd.,  which is an Indian Company and the company ceased  to
\nbe a 100% subsidiary of the Parent company.  It is said that
\nwhen negotiations for the aforesaid agreement were going  on
\nnegotiations  were  also  in progress for  the\ttransfer  of
\nshares\tto  the\t Indian\t company and  that  the\t latter\t was
\napprised of the terms of the proposed agreement and approved
\nof the terms of payment of 5% of the net value of sales.
\nOn August 25, 1955, the General Engineering Employees  Union
\nrepresenting  the workmen who are respondents Nos. 1  and  2
\nsubmitted  certain  demands to the  company.   No  agreement
\nhaving\tbeen  arrived  at, the matter was  referred  to\t the
\nConciliation Officer.  As
\n940<\/span>
\nno settlement was arrived at as a result of the conciliation
\nproceedings,  the Conciliation Officer submitted his  report
\nto  the Government of Bombay under sub-s. 4 of s. 12 of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947.\t The Government of  Bombay,’
\nafter  considering  the said report and in exercise  of\t the
\npowers\tconferred  on  it  by  sub-s. 5\t of  s.\t 12  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947, made an order on  August  6,
\n1956,  referring  the disputes between the company  and\t its
\nworkmen (other than those of the Watch and Ward staff)\tover
\ntheir  demands mentioned in the schedule to that  order\t for
\nadjudication  to the Tribunal from whose award\tthe  present
\nappeals have been filed.  This reference was marked as\t(IT)
\nNo. 109 of 1956.  By another order made on October 10, 1956,
\nthe  Government of Bombay referred the disputes between\t the
\ncompany\t and  its workmen belonging to the  Watch  and\tWard
\nstaff over the latter’s demands mentioned in the schedule to
\nthat  order  for adjudication to the  same  Tribunal.\tThat
\nreference was marked as (IT) No. 147 of 1956.
\nOn September 10, 1956, a statement of claim was filed by the
\nGenera\tSecretary, General Engineering Employees  Union,  on
\nbehalf\tof  the workmen (other than those of the  Watch\t and
\nWard  staff)  in Reference (IT) No. 109\t of  1956  claiming,
\ninter  alia, that all workmen should be given  bonus  either\n<\/p>\n
(i) equivalent to 331 % of their earnings during 1954-55  or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  a prorate bonus equivalent to their six months’  basic
\nwages, basic wage being calculated at the daily rate of\t pay
\nwhich  the  workmen drew on June 30, 1955, and\tbonus  being
\ngiven without attaching any conditions.\t In the statement of
\nclaim the Union contended: (i) that during the year  1954-55
\nthe  company had made huge profits, (ii) that the  company’s
\nbusiness had expanded by leaps and bounds and production had
\nmounted\t up very much and the company had made huge  profits
\nand (iii) that the wages paid to its employees fell terribly
\nshort  of the living wage standard and extremely out of\t any
\nreasonable proportion to the tremendously high salaries paid
\nto the company’s officers.  The Union requested the Tribunal
\nto  take  into consideration the company’s  practice,  inter
\nalia, of writing off
\n941<\/span>
\nof  very substantial amounts as service fees to\t the  Parent
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
The  company  filed its written statement in  reply  to\t the
\nstatement of claim filed by the Union in Reference No.\t(IT)
\n109  of\t 1956.\tWhile agreeing that it had  made  reasonable
\nprogress,  the company did not admit that the  progress\t had
\nbeen as rapid or phenomenal as the Union had suggested.\t The
\ncompany\t stated\t that it had been able\tto  accumulate\tonly
\nsmall  reserves, that, in spite of its\tincreased  turnover,
\nits profit for the year in question was quite low on account
\nof  stiff  competition, that the wages paid to\tthe  workmen
\ncompared favorably with those paid by similar concerns, that
\nthey  paid  to\tthe Parent company a  service  fee  as\tcon-
\nsideration for the use of their patterns, valuable  designs,
\ntechnical  aid, benefit -of research and ancillary  services
\nand  facilities.   For the purposes of\tthe  reference,\t the
\ncompany filed a copy of its audited balance-sheet and profit
\nand  loss  account for the year 1954-55\t as  a\tconfidential
\nexhibit.   In the said profit and loss account, service\t fee
\nof  5%\tso  paid  for  the year was  shown  as\tan  item  of
\nexpenditure.\n<\/p>\n
The  Union on behalf of the workmen belonging to  the  Watch
\nand Ward staff filed a statement of claim in Reference\t(IT)
\nNo.  147 of 1956 regarding certain special claims  of  those
\nworkmen\t to  which  the\t company  replied  by  its   written
\nstatement.   It is not necessary to refer to that  statement
\nof  claim by the Union or the company’s\t written  statement,
\nfor they are not relevant to the question of bonus.
\nIn the course of hearing of the References, which were taken
\nup  together, the workmen, through their counsel,  submitted
\nto  the Tribunal, amongst other things, that the payment  of
\nthe  said service fee by the company was not  justified\t and
\nthat the same should be disallowed as an item of expenditure
\nfor the purpose of calculating bonus payable to the  workmen
\nfor  the year 1954-55.\tThe Tribunal thereupon\tcalled\tupon
\nthe company to bring on record by an affidavit all  relevant
\nfacts  and circumstances relating to the payment of  service
\nfee.   The  company submitted that it was not  open  to\t the
\nworkmen to question an item of
\n942<\/span>
\nexpenditure  actually  incurred and paid in  the  course  of
\nbusiness or to request that such an item. already debited to
\nthe accounts, which had duly been audited and passed, should
\nbe disallowed.\tThe company submitted that in any event\t the
\nsaid  payment was fully justified and reasonable.   However,
\nin compliance with the Tribunal’s directions, the company on
\nDecember  18, 1956, filed an affidavit affirmed on  December
\n14, 1956, by Shri V. V. Dhume. the Secretary to the  company
\nsetting forth the relevant facts and circumstances  relating
\nto  the\t payment of the said service fee.   At\tthe  further
\ndirection  of  the Tribunal, a copy of the  agreement  dated
\nAugust 12, 1947, was also filed by the company.\t Shri V.  V.
\nDhume  was  examined  before  the  Tribunal  and  his\toral
\ntestimony was also recorded.\n<\/p>\n
The  material provisions of the said agreement have  already
\nbeen  summarised  above.  From the affidavit  and  the\toral
\nevidence of Shri V. V. Dhume referred to above, it is  clear
\nthat  all  the\tgoods which  the  company  manufactures\t are
\nmanufactured   wholly  in  accordance  with  the   patterns,
\ndesigns,  specifications and technical -processes  developed
\nby  and\t belonging  to the Parent  company  which  it  makes
\navailable to the company and that the company’s products are
\nsold  exclusively under the trade names and marks  belonging
\nto the Parent company.\tThere can be and is no dispute\tthat
\nthe  company  has thus at its disposal the  benefit  of\t the
\nParent\tcompany’s  accumulated\tknowledge  and\t experience,
\ntechnical data and goodwill and the reputation attaching  to
\nits products.  It is clear upon the evidence on record\tthat
\nthe   manufacture  of  specialised  electrical\t goods\t and
\nequipment  of the types produced by the company is a  highly
\nspecialised business of a very competitive nature  requiring
\nthe use of the most up to date technique.  In order to\tkeep
\nabreast with the latest development in the field of manufac-
\nture of this kind of equipment, the company will  ordinarily
\nhave   to  maintain  its  own  research\t  laboratories\t and
\nspecialised staff to develop new methods and innovations and
\nprocesses.   The  company,  however,  does  not\t maintain  a
\nseparate research establishment -Of its own but obtains\t the
\nbenefit of the Parent
\n943<\/span>
\ncompany’s  invaluable  services under  the  said  agreement.
\nAccording  to Shri V. V. Dhume the service fee paid  by\t the
\ncompany to the Parent company constitutes, in a\t substantial
\nmeasure,  a mere reimbursement of expenses incurred  by\t the
\nlatter\tin  the maintenance and operation  of  its  research
\ndepartment and rendering of facilities to the company.\tShri
\nV. V. Dhume further stated that, had the company to maintain
\nits  own  research department to provide  such\tservice\t and
\nfacilities, the annual expense of the company would have far
\nexceeded  the service fee actually paid by it to the  Parent
\ncompany.   It also appears from the affidavit of Shri V.  V.
\nDhume  that the independent shareholders of the company\t who
\nhad  acquired 26% shares of the company about the time\twhen
\nthe  ” Technical Aid Agreement ” was executed had  willingly
\naccepted  that\tagreement.   Apart from the  fact  that\t the
\nagreement  had\treceived the approval of the  Government  of
\nIndia in the Ministry of Finance as well as in the  Ministry
\nof  Commerce and Industry, the income-tax  authorities\thave
\nfrom year to year allowed the full amount of the service fee
\npaid by the company to the Parent company as an\t expenditure
\nincurred  wholly  and exclusively for the  purposes  of\t the
\ncompany’s  business.  Likewise every payment and  remittance
\nmade  by  the company representing the service\tfee  to\t the
\nParent\tcompany has been sanctioned by the Reserve  Bank  of
\nIndia  ever since 1947.\t The payment of the service  fee  no
\ndoubt  represents  a binding contractual obligation  on\t the
\ncompany\t which\tcan  be legally enforced against  it  and  a
\nbreach\tthereof on the part of the company may well lead  to
\nthe  cancellation thereof by the Parent company as a  result
\nwhereof\t the  company will be deprived of the  services\t and
\nfacilities  obtained by it under the agreement and may\teven
\nbe  prevented from carrying on its business.  There  was  no
\nserious\t cross-examination  of Shri V.\tV.  Dhume  regarding
\nthese  matters by counsel appearing for the workmen  and  no
\nsubstantive  evidence  on  these questions was\tled  by\t the
\nworkmen.\n<\/p>\n
The  Tribunal  made  its award in  both\t the  References  on
\nJanuary 8, 1957.  As regards the service fee,
\n944<\/span>
\nthe Tribunal held (i) that the amount of service fee paid by
\nthe  company to the Parent company was excessive and  beyond
\nthe  requirements of commercial necessity and was  allowable
\nas  an expense only as to one quarter thereof and (ii)\tthat
\nin any event even if the commercial necessity of the payment
\ncould not be challenged, a large part of the payment was  in
\nthe nature of capital expenditure and that only the balance,
\nbeing  in fact a quarter thereof, was allowable\t as  revenue
\nexpense for the purpose of determining the surplus available
\nfor  the payment of bonus to the workmen.  Thus, as  regards
\nthe  service  fee, the Tribunal in its\taward  proceeded  to
\n“prune\tit  down “. In the actual calculations made  by\t the
\nTribunal for determining the available surplus according  to
\nthe  bonus  formula  appearing in what has  been  marked  as
\nconfidential exhibit T-1, the Tribunal has allowed only\t Rs.
\n2  lacs out of the total of Rs. 7.67 lacs actually  paid  as
\nservice fee and added back Rs. 5.67 lacs to the profits.  It
\nwill also be noticed from that confidential exhibit T-1 that
\nthe  Tribunal has deducted as a first charge 4\t1\/2  months’
\nbasic wages as bonus before depreciation as well as tax,  on
\nno better ground than that, in the view taken by it, income-
\ntax  should not be deducted as a prior charge on  the  gross
\nprofits\t in preference to bonus.  In so doing  the  Tribunal
\nhas not, quite clearly, followed but has made variations  in
\nthat  formula.\tThe bonus formula enjoins the  Tribunals  to
\narrive at the available surplus after providing for  certain
\nprior charges mentioned therein and then to determine, after
\ntaking\tinto consideration all material\t circumstances,\t how
\nthat  available surplus should be distributed’\tbetween\t the
\nthree interests, namely, the industry, the shareholders\t and
\nthe workmen.  To deduct bonus as a prior charge even  before
\nthe  recognised items of prior charges appears to us to\t put
\nthe cart before the horse.  Such a process is certainly\t not
\ngiving\teffect to. the bonus formula but amounts to  ad\t hoc
\ndetermination which may vary according to the length of\t the
\nproverbial foot of the Lord Chancellor and is bound to\tlead
\nto  chaos  and\tindustrial unrest.  The\t bonus\tformula\t was
\nevolved by
\n945<\/span>
\nthe Labour Appellate Tribunal as far back as 1950 and it has
\nbeen generally approved by this Court in more decisions than
\none  and what is more it has worked  fairly  satisfactorily.
\nIn  our\t judgment  in the,’  appeals  of  Associated  Cement
\nCompanies  Ltd. v. Its Workmen<\/a> (1) we have  deprecated\tsuch
\ndeparture  from the bonus formula by  individual  Tribunals,
\nfor   clearly  such  departure\tis  not\t conducive  to\t the
\nharmonious  and peaceful relations between the\tworkmen\t and
\ntheir employers.\n<\/p>\n
The only other question which calls for our decision is\t the
\ncorrectness of the Tribunal’s award as to the service  fees.
\nThe  conclusion of the Tribunal on that point is founded  on
\nthe ground that the test of ” commercial necessity ” applied
\nby  the income-tax authorities for determining\twhether\t the
\nexpenditure  was allowable under s. 10(2)(xv) of the  Indian
\nIncome-tax Act should also be applied by the Tribunal.\t The
\nTribunal  evidently overlooked the fact that the  income-tax
\nauthorities  are  entitled to apply the test  of  commercial
\nnecessity  by  reason  of  the\texpress\t provisions  of\t  s.
\n10(2)(xv)  which  authorise them to arrive  at\tthe  taxable
\nincome,\t profits  and  gains  after  making  allowance\t for
\nexpenditures  laid out and expended wholly  and\t exclusively
\nfor the purpose of the business.  There is no such provision
\nin  the Industrial Disputes Act.  In tile absence of  cogent
\nand  compelling evidence leading to the definite  conclusion
\nand  finding  that a purported expenditure was sham  or\t had
\nbeen made with the express object of minimising the  profits
\nwith a view to deprive the workmen of their bonus, it is  no
\npart of the duty of an Industrial Tribunal to substitute its
\nown  judgment  as  to  what  was  or  was  not\tcommercially
\njustified  in  the place of the judgment  exercised  by\t the
\ncompany and its Directors in whom. in law the management  of
\nthe  company  is  confided.   The  Tribunal  has  completely
\noverlooked  the\t fact that the company’s accounts  bad\tbeen
\nduly audited by its auditors who were duly appointed by\t the
\ncompany and that the said auditors had duly certified
\n(1) [1950].S.C.R 925.\n<\/p>\n
119<\/span>
\n946<\/span><\/p>\n
in the manner provided for by the Indian Companies Act, that
\nthe said accounts had been drawn  up in conformity with\t the
\nlaw  and exhibited a true and correct view of the  state  of
\nthe  company’s affairs.\t The Tribunal has paid no  attention
\nto the fact, appearing in the evidence on record before him,
\nthat the income-tax department had allowed such service\t fee
\nas  legitimate revenue expense and the entire amount of\t the
\nservice\t fee  was  allowed  as\ta  deduction  by  income-tax
\nauthorities  every year as a revenue expenditure wholly\t and
\nexclusively incurred as a matter of commercial necessity  of
\nthe  company’s\tbusiness.  Nor does the Tribunal  appear  to
\nhave adverted to the fact that the remittances to the Parent
\ncompany\t were  allowed\tby the\tReserve\t Bank  which  always
\nexercises  close  scrutiny  on every payment  made  to\tnon-
\nresidents  with\t a view to prohibit payments which  are\t not
\njustified.  Nor has the Tribunal taken note of the fact that
\nthe  Ministry  of Finance and the Ministry of  Commerce\t and
\nIndustry have approved of the payment of the service fee  as
\nprovided  in  the  agreement.  A  conclusion  drawn  by\t the
\nTribunal without adverting to the evidence before it amounts
\nto  an\terror  of  law and  cannot  possibly  be  sustained.
\nFurther, the Tribunal appears to have been led away by three
\nfacts, namely, (i) that the company did not pay any  service
\nfee  during the period 1937-47, (ii) that the agreement\t was
\nexecuted  on  August  12, 1947, that is to  say\t three\tdays
\nbefore the attainment of our independence and (iii) that  at
\nthe date of the agreement the company was a 100%  subsidiary
\nof  the\t Parent company.  As regards the first\treason,\t the
\nexplanation may well be that during the period 1937 to\t1947
\nthe  growth was still in a stage of development and  growth.
\nIn any case,the fact that no fees had been charged during  a
\nparticular  ‘period when the company was 100% subsidiary  of
\nthe Parent company cannot reasonably be\t taken’ as a  reason
\nfor  not allowing them in future.  It will be recalled\tthat
\nnegotiations  were  going  on  for  the\t acquisition  of   a
\nconsiderable block of shares by an Indian company simultane-
\nously with the negotiations for the execution of the
\n947<\/span>
\nagreement  and that in fact 26% of the shares were  acquired
\nby Messrs.  Greaves Cotton Co. Ltd.  Further, such  service,
\nfee has been paid year after year from 1947 right up to\t the
\nbonus  year  in\t question.  The\t second\t reason\t is  equally
\nunsustainable.\tThe fact that a great constitutional  change
\nwas envisaged may well and properly have been the reason for
\nplacing\t the legal relationship between the company and\t the
\nParent company on a firmer and permanent legal footing.\t The
\nTribunal seems to have overlooked the fact stated by Shri V.
\nV.  Dhume,  that ” the payment of the service  fee  for\t the
\nservices  of this nature is quite a common feature in  India
\n“.  The reasonableness and legality of the payment  of\tsuch
\nfee  is\t also  supported by the\t fact  that  the  income-tax
\nauthorities and the Reserve Bank of India have not taken any
\nexception  to such payment.  The last reason adopted by\t the
\nTribunal  clearly overlooks the fact that shortly after\t the
\nexecution  of  the  agreement about 26%\t of  shares  in\t the
\ncompany\t were acquired by an Indian company and\t year  after
\nyear  ever since then these independent shareholders of\t the
\nIndian company had willingly accepted the service agreement.
\nFinally\t the award does not disclose any basis on which\t the
\nTribunal  has purported to ” prune it down ” to one  quarter
\nof the amount actually paid by the company.\n<\/p>\n
After  a careful consideration of the evidence on record  we
\nhave  come  to the conclusion that this part  of  the  award
\nconcerning disallowance of the major portion of the  service
\nfees  cannot  be supported or upheld.  The Tribunal  in\t the
\naward  itself  has pointed out, as already stated,  that  in
\ncase the whole of this service, fee is to be allowed, as  we
\nthink it should be, then on that basis the available surplus
\nwould permit the payment of bonus of one month’s basic wages
\nto the workmen.\t The company has no objection to payment  of
\nbonus  to the workmen amounting to one month’s basic  wages,
\nsubject\t to  the conditions laid down in the award  in\tthis
\nbehalf\tand  indeed  it has done so since the  date  of\t the
\naward.\t The  result,  therefore, is that  we  allow,  these
\nappeals\t to  the extent that the award of  the\tTribunal:’be
\nvaried and modified by
\n948<\/span>
\nallowing only one month’s basic wages to its workmen who are
\nrespondents to these appeals instead of 2 1\/2 months’  basic
\nwages  as provided in the award, subject, of course, to\t the
\nconditions  laid down in the award.  Be it noted  here\tthat
\nthe  company  has  paid this bonus to  the  respondents\t and
\nnothing\t remains  due  and payable for\tbonus  for  1954-55.
\nConsidering  all circumstances of these appeals,  we  direct
\neach party to bear its own costs of these appeals.
\nAppeal allowed in part.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 1089, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 936 Author: S R Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: CROMPTON PARKINSON (WORKS) PRIVATELTD., BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: ITS WORKMEN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCrompton Parkinson (Works) ... vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Crompton Parkinson (Works) ... vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1959-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-27T18:47:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T18:47:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\"},\"wordCount\":3917,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\",\"name\":\"Crompton Parkinson (Works) ... vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T18:47:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Crompton Parkinson (Works) ... vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Crompton Parkinson (Works) ... vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-27T18:47:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959","datePublished":"1959-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T18:47:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959"},"wordCount":3917,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959","name":"Crompton Parkinson (Works) ... vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T18:47:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-parkinson-works-vs-its-workmen-and-others-on-6-may-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Crompton Parkinson (Works) … vs Its Workmen And Others on 6 May, 1959"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183722","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}