{"id":69516,"date":"1963-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963"},"modified":"2016-01-25T15:24:14","modified_gmt":"2016-01-25T09:54:14","slug":"aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963","title":{"rendered":"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALUMINIUM CORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHEIR WORKMEN AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/08\/1963\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial   Dispute-Award  of\tbonus-Full  Bench   Formula-\nAllowance  under  rehabilitation  charges-Burden  of  proof-\nEvidentiary value of statements in balance sheets.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tis a manufacturer of aluminium,\t having\t two\nfactories  one\tnear  Asansol and  another  in\tAsansol.   A\ndispute\t  having  arisen  between  the\tappellant  and\t the\nrespondent on the question of bonus for the year 1957-58  it\nwas referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of\nWest Bengal.  A similar dispute arose between the  appellant\nand  its  workmen in the second factory and  this  also\t was\nreferred  to the same tribunal.\t In the second\tdispute\t the\nparties\t submitted  joint  petitions  before  the   tribunal\nagreeing to abide by the award on the bonus question in\t the\nfirst dispute and requesting that similar award be made\t ,in\nthe second dispute also.  In the first dispute the  Tribunal\nawarded\t a  bonus  equivalent to three\tmonths\tbasic  wages\ninclusive  of the amount that had already been paid  by\t the\ncompany\t voluntarily.\tAn  award was  made  in\t the  second\ndispute also in similar terms.\tIn determining the amount of\navailable surplus the Tribunal applied the rules embodied in\nthe  Full Bench Formula which was approved by this Court  in\nAssociated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Itsworkmen,  [1959]   S.C.R.\n925, and allowed Rs. 43 lacs as returnon  reserve used\tas\nworking\t  capital  and\tallowed\t nothing  under\t  the\thead\nrehabilitation charge.\tThe appellant appealed against\tboth\nthe awards by way of special leave granted by this Court.\nOn  behalf of the appellant it was contended that there\t was\nno  justification  in  rejecting the claim  under  the\thead\nrehabilitation charge.\tIt was urged that the balance  sheet\nof the company would by itself show what part of reserve was\nused as working capital and a correct way of reaching at the\nfigure of reserve\n430\nused as working capital would be by deducting liabilities of\nthe company in the balance sheet from as shown therein.\nHeld   :  (i)  The  burden  to\tprove  any  prior  head\t  of\nrehabilitation\tlies  on the employer and  that\t unless\t the\nemployer  has  by proper evidence established its  claim  to\nsome  amount  as  rehabilitation charge the  claim  must  be\nrejected.  In the present case the materials on the basis of\nwhich the multipliers and devisers have been arrived at have\nnot  been established by proper evidence and  therefore\t the\ntribunal was justified in rejecting the claim under the head\nrehabilitation charge.\n(ii)Regarding  the  claim of prior charges under  the  head\n\"return\t on reserve used as working capital\"  the  appellant\ngave  widely  different estimates and this fact\t gives\tsome\njustification in refusing to accept any of these as correct.\nThe mere statements in the balance sheet as regards  current\nassets\tand  liabilities cannot be taken as  correct.\tThey\nhave   to  be  established  by\tproper\tevidence  by   those\nresponsible  for  preparing the balance sheet  or  by  other\ncompetent witnesses.  This has not been done in the  present\ncase.\nPetled Turkey Dye Works v. Dye and Commercial Workers  Union<\/a>\n[1960]\t2 S.C.R. 906, Khandesh Spg and Wvg.  Mills Co.\tLtd.\nv.  Rastriya  Girni Kamgar Sangh, Jalgaon,<\/a> [1960]  2  S.C.R.\n841,  Bengal  Kagazkal Mazdoor Union v. The  Titagarh  Paper\nMills Co.<\/a> [1964] 3 S.C.R. 38, referred to.\n(iii)The practice on the part of employers to show  the\nentire\tamount\tof  reserve available  for  use\t as  working\ncapital as the actual amount used was wrong.\n(iv)For deciding what part of the available surplus  should\nbe paid to the workmen as bonus the wage bill of the workmen\nonly has to be considered and the Tribunal is not  concerned\nwith what is paid by the company to its officers.\nThe Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing the bonus\nfigures and the appeals arc therefore dismissed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  238\t and
\n818 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the awards dated October\t 21,
\n1960,  and  May 17, 1961 of the Fifth  Industrial  Tribunal,
\nWest  Bengal in Cases Nos.  VIII-77 of 1959 and\t VIII-93  of
\n1959 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V.\t Viswanatha  Sastri and B.  P.\tMaheshwari  for\t the
\nappellant (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
Janardhan Sharma, for the respondents (in the both appeals).
\nAugust 14, 1963.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nthe
\n431<\/span>
\nDAS  GUPTA J.-These appeals by special leave are against  an
\naward of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, on\t the
\nquestion  of  bonus for the year 1957-58 to workmen  of\t the
\nappellant-Company.   The appellant which is engaged  in\t the
\nmanufacture of aluminium from basic material has its factory
\nat  J.\tK.  Nagar near Asansol in West\tBengal.\t  A  dispute
\nhaving arisen between the appellant and some of its  workmen
\non  the\t question  of  bonus for the  year  1957-58  it\t was
\nreferred  to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal,  by
\nan  order  of  the Government of West  Bengal.\t In  another
\nreference  made by that Government to the same\tTribunal  on
\nMay  2, 1959 a dispute between the Company and\tits  workmen
\nemployed  at  its factory at J. K. Nagar,  Asansol,  on\t the
\nquestion  of  bonus  for the year 1957-58  was\tone  of\t the
\nmatters\t referred.  In the first reference the Tribunal\t has
\nawarded\t in favour of the workmen bonus equivalent to  three
\nmonths’\t basic wages inclusive of the amount (equivalent  to
\nhalf  a month’s basic wages) that has already been  paid  by
\nthe  Company  voluntarily.   In\t the  second  reference\t the
\nparties filed joint petitions before the’ Tribunal  agreeing
\nto  abide by any decision or award whatsoever passed by\t the
\nTribunal  regarding the bonus issue in the  first  reference
\nand  requesting\t that similar award be\tmade  regarding\t the
\nissue of bonus in both references.  The Tribunal accordingly
\npassed\tan  order in the second reference that\tthe  workmen
\nwould get the same bonus as awarded in the first  reference.
\nThe result of this is that the workmen covered by the second
\nreference  would  also be entitled to  three  months’  basic
\nwages as bonus for the year 1957-58.\n<\/p>\n
Applying  the  rules embodied in what is known as  the\tFull
\nBench  Formula evolved by the Labour Appellate\tTribunal  in
\n1950  and  approved  by\t this  Court  in  Associated  Cement
\nCompanies Ltd., v. Its Workmen<\/a>(1) for calculation of  profit
\nbonus  the Tribunal held that the available surplus was\t Rs.
\n4.63 lacs.  It pointed out that if bonus equivalent to three
\nmonths’\t basic wage was given to workmen, still the  Company
\nwill  have Rs. 3.91 lacs as the available surplus  inclusive
\nof the refund of incometax on account of bonus, which  meant
\nan expenditure of
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. 925.\n<\/p>\n
432<\/span><\/p>\n
only Rs.. 0.72 lacs on this head by the Company. In reaching
\nthis  figure of Rs. 4.63 lacs as the available\tsurplus\t the
\nTribunal allowed Rs. 0.43 lacs as return on reserves used as
\nworking\t  capital  and\tallowed\t nothing  under\t  the\thead
\nrehabilitation\tcharge.\t  In  support  of  the\tappeals\t Mr.
\nVishwanatha Sastri has vehemently challenged the  Tribunal’s
\nview on both these matters.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tthe  question of rehabilitation charge\t Mr.  Sastri
\ncontended  that\t there was no justification  whatsoever\t for
\nrejecting  the claim on this head altogether.  It has to  be
\nremembered in this connection that by a series of  decisions
\nof  this  Court it is now well settled that  the  burden  to
\nprove any prior charge under the head rehabilitation lies on
\nthe  employer  and that unless the employer  has  by  proper
\nevidence   established\t its  claim  to\t  some\t amount\t  as
\nrehabilitation\tcharge\tthe  claim must\t be  rejected.\t The
\nappellant  adopted  a curious procedure.   It  examined\t its
\nManager\t and  through  him put\tin  statements\tshowing\t its
\ncalculations  of available surplus.  A number of  statements
\nwere  put,  in each showing the available surplus   as\tnil.
\nWhile  however in  statements  1 and  11 the  rehabilitation
\ncharge\tis  shown  as Rs. 6,27234.00 it is  shown   as\t Rs.
\n5,84,534.00  in\t statements  III  and  IV, and in statements
\nV and VI the figure is Rs. 10,25,021.00 How  such  different
\nfigures\t could\t be arrived  at\t has not been sought  to  be
\nexplained  by  its only witness, the Manager.\tThe  witness
\nstated that the assets of the Company were revalued in\t1956
\nby  a Committee of which he was one of the members.  He\t had
\nadded that each of the assets was ascertained with reference
\nto the Company’s registers and they were .divided in  blocks
\naccording   to their date of acquisition.  A portion of\t the
\nreport made by the Revaluation Committee was put in.   There
\nis  nothing  however in this or in  the\t witness’s  evidence
\nthat   throws  any  light  on  the  important  question\t  of
\nmultiplier  and divisor.  On the question of multiplier\t the
\nwitness says that the multiplier was worked out according to
\nthe procedure as detailed in the Revaluation Report it,self.
\nHe has not tried himself to explain this basis.\t It is by no
\nmeans  clear that he has special knowledge and skill in\t the
\nmatter of replacement of the different machinery. The report
\nwas signed also by two other members, neither
\n433<\/span>
\nof  whom has been examined.  The materials on the  basis  of
\nwhich  these multipliers were arrived at have also not\tbeen
\nestablished by any evidence.\n<\/p>\n
When we turn to the question of divisor the position is even
\nmore unsatisfactory.  The witness has not vouchsafed a\tword
\nas  to\thow  the  divisor was  arrived\tat.   It  is  hardly
\nnecessary  to  point  out  that the  mere  submission  of  a
\nstatement prepared in the Company’s office showing a certain
\ndivisor cannot meet the requirements of law unless and until
\nthe  basis of this calculation is explained by testimony  on
\noath which can be tested by cross-examination.\tThe Tribunal\n<\/p>\n
-was  therefore wholly justified in rejecting the claim\t for
\nrehabilitation.\n<\/p>\n
  On  the  claim of prior charge under the head\t “return  on
\nreserves used as working capital”, the Tribunal, as  already
\nstated, has allowed Rs. 0.43 lacs.  What the Company  claims
\nunder this head is difficult to understand.  For, as in\t the
\ncase  of  rehabilitation  charge so also  under\t this  head,
\ndifferent  figures have been shown in different\t statements.
\nStatements  Nos. 1, III and V show the reserves employed  in
\nbusiness  as Rs. 111,74,162.00, while in statements  11,  TV
\nand  VI\t the  amount  is shown\tas  Rs.\t 199,56,718.00.\t The
\ndifference  is due to the fact that while in  statements  1,
\nIII  and  V, the depreciation reserves is shown\t as  Rs.  86
\nlacs,  the corresponding figure in statements 11, IV and  VI
\nis more than double of this, being Rs. 173,82,556.00.
\n   The\tvery fact that such widely different  estimates\t have
\nbeen given is some justification for refusing to accept\t any
\nof  these  as  correct.\t Indeed, the  way  the\tCompany\t has
\napproached  the\t calculations of reserves  used\t as  working
\ncapital\t makes\tone think that those responsible  for  these
\ncalculations  did not treat the matter seriously at all\t and
\nfelt that by putting arbitrary figures under this head\tthey
\ncould play havoc with the Full Bench Formula.  This deserves
\nstrong condemnation.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Sastri  made no attempt to justify these calculations  of
\nreserves  used as working capital.  He tried to persuade  us
\nhowever\t that  the  balance-sheet of the  Company  would  by
\nitself\tshow  what  part of reserves  was  used\t as  working
\ncapital.   Learned counsel submitted that are easy and\tsafe
\nway of ascertaining the correct figure under this head is
\n434<\/span>
\nby  deducting the current liabilities of the Company in\t the
\nbalance-sheet  from  the current assets\t as  shown  therein.
\nThere  is undoubtedly support in standard books on  account-
\nancy  for  the proposition that the excess  of\tthe  readily
\nrealisable, liquid, or current assets of a concern over\t its
\ncurrent\t liabilities  is the proper measure of\tthe  working
\ncapital. (See Cropper’s Higher Book-Keeping and Accounts 7th
\nEdition,  p. 301 and Pickles on Accountancy, 2nd Edition  p.
\n1325).\n<\/p>\n
There  are however two difficulties in the way of  accepting
\nMr. Sastri’s contention.  The first is that the mere  state-
\nments  in  the balance-sheet as regards current\t assets\t and
\ncurrent\t liabilities cannot be taken as sacrosanct.  As\t has
\nbeen  emphasised  in more than one case by this\t Court,\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the figures as shown in  the  balance-sheet
\nitself are to be established by proper evidence in Court  by
\nthose  responsible  for preparing the  balance-sheet  or  by
\nother competent witnesses. (Petlad Turkey Dye Works v.\tDyes
\nand Chemical Workers’ Union<\/a>(1) and Khandesh Spg. and Weaving
\nMills  Case(2)).   This\t was recently  emphasised  again  in
\nBengal\tKagabkal Mazdoor Union v. The Titagarh\tPaper  Mills
\nCo. Ltd.<\/a>(3).\n<\/p>\n
The  second  difficulty\t is that the task  here\t is  not  to
\nascertain  the total working capital of the concern, but  to
\nfind out what portion of the reserves has been used as work-
\ning  capital.\tIt may often happen that the  whole  of\t the
\nworking\t capital  is  provided from  what  remained  of\t the
\nsubscribed  capital  after  the\t acquisition  of  the  fixed
\nassets.\t  There\t may be other cases where a portion  of\t the
\nworking capital is provided from the subscribed capital\t and
\nthe remainder is met from the reserves.\t There appears to be
\na tendency on the part of some employers to show the  entire
\namount\tof reserves available for use as working capital  as
\nthe actual amount used for that purpose.  This is  obviously
\nwrong.\n<\/p>\n
It would be improper and indeed impossible in most cases  to
\ncome to a correct conclusion on these matters by scrutiny of
\nthe   balance-sheet  itself.   Whenever\t a  Company   claims
\ndeductions from the gross profits under the head
\n(1)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 906.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 841.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1964] S.C.R. 38.\n<\/p>\n
435<\/span><\/p>\n
“return\t on  reserves  used as working\tcapital,”  as  prior
\ncharge,\t for  ascertaining the available surplus  under\t the
\nFull  Bench  Formula  it is necessary and  proper  that\t the
\naccountant,  or\t other\tcompetent officers  of\tthe  Company
\nshould come into the witness-box and assist the Tribunals in
\ncoming to a satisfactory conclusion on the question.
\nNo  such  attempt  was\tmade in this case  and\twe  find  it
\nimpossible to say from the evidence on the record as to what
\nportion,  if  any,  of the reserves  was  actually  used  as
\nworking capital.  The tribunal would have been justified  in
\nrejecting in toto the Company’s claim under this head.\t The
\nallowance  of  Rs. 0.43 lacs as prior charge  on  return  on
\nreserves  used as working capital was therefore an error  in
\nfavour of -the appellant.  There is no reason therefore\t for
\nreducing  the  figure  as  found  by  the  Tribunal  as\t the
\navailable surplus.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly it was suggested by Mr. Sastri that in deciding\twhat
\nshould be allowed as bonus out of this available surplus the
\nTribunal should have proceeded on the basis that one month’s
\nbasic  wages  amount  to Rs. 90,000 and\t not  Rs.  50,00  as
\nmentioned by the Tribunal.  This figure of Rs. 90,000\/-\t has
\nbeen given by the Company’s Manager as the total wage of the
\nworkmen and the employees, including officers.\tWe are\ttold
\nthat the officers were also paid bonus and that also has  to
\ncome  out of the available surplus.  So Mr.  Sastri  argued,
\nthough rather faintly, that the bonus should have been fixed
\non the basis of Rs. 90,000 wage bill.  We do not think\tthat
\nto be the correct approach.  The Industrial Tribunal is\t not
\nconcerned with what is paid by the Company to its  officers.
\nIt is concerned only with the workmen’s claim of bonus.\t For
\ndeciding therefore what part of the available surplus should
\nbe paid to the workmen as bonus the wage bill of the workmen
\nonly  has  to be considered.  It is -not disputed  that\t the
\nwage  bill  (basic  wage)  of  the  workmen,  excluding\t the
\nofficers,  was\tRs.  50,000.   The  Tribunal  has  therefore
\ncommitted  no  error  in fixing the bonus  figures  on\tthis
\nbasis.\n<\/p>\n
We  wish  to make it clear that what we have  said  in\tthis
\njudgment  will\tnot  stand  in\tthe  way  of  the   employer
\nsubstantiating\ta claim for rehabilitation charge by  proper
\nevidence, in any future dispute on that question.
\nAs all the points raised in the appeals fail, they are
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    Appeals, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
436<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 PETITIONER: ALUMINIUM CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/1963 BENCH: ACT: Industrial Dispute-Award of bonus-Full Bench Formula- Allowance under rehabilitation charges-Burden of proof- Evidentiary value of statements in balance sheets. HEADNOTE: The appellant is a manufacturer […]<\/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-69516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 - 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\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-25T09:54:14+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T09:54:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\"},\"wordCount\":2004,\"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\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\",\"name\":\"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T09:54:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 - 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\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-25T09:54:14+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963","datePublished":"1963-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T09:54:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963"},"wordCount":2004,"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\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963","name":"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T09:54:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-vs-their-workmen-and-ors-on-14-august-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aluminium Corporation vs Their Workmen And Ors on 14 August, 1963"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/69516","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=69516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}