{"id":98217,"date":"1960-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960"},"modified":"2018-05-11T05:05:16","modified_gmt":"2018-05-10T23:35:16","slug":"ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 826, \t\t 1960 SCR (3) 194<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM\/S.  PEIRCE LESLIE & CO., LTD., KOZHIKODE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHEIR WORKMEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/03\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  826\t\t  1960 SCR  (3) 194\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1967 SC1222\t (10)\n R\t    1968 SC 538\t (28)\n R\t    1971 SC2521\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Bonus-Full Bench  formula-Variation\t of-\nUnusual risk in business and employment of small  capital-If\ngood grounds for variation-Rehabilitation allowance, Purpose\nof-Claim  for bonus by small percentage\t of  workmen-Whether\nentire surplus can be taken into account.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nDuring the year 1954-1955, the appellant paid a sum  equiva-\nlent  to 3 months basic wages as bonus to its  monthly\tpaid\nclerical  staff.   These  employees  raised  an\t  industrial\ndispute claiming an additional bonus equal to 7 months basic\nwages.\t The  Industrial Tribunal to which the\tdispute\t was\nreferred  awarded additional bonus equal to 5  months  basic\nwages.\t The appellant contended that (i) since the  element\nof  risk in the business was great and the capital  employed\nwas  small  the\t Full Bench formula  had  to  be  materially\naltered\t and rates higher than 6% on paid up capital and  4%\non  reserves employed as working capital should\t be  allowed\n(ii) a higher allowance ought to be made for rehabilitation;\nand  (iii)  the entire surplus ought not to  be\t treated  as\navailable for distribution as only a small percentage of the\nworkmen had made the claim for bonus.\nHeld,  that  since the claim for additional bonus  was\tmade\nonly  by  a  small  percentage of  the\tworkmen\t the  entire\navailable  surplus  could  not be treated  as  available  in\ndistributing bonus to them.  Not only the 882 staff  members\nwho  had raised the claim but II, 247 other workmen as\twell\nhad  contributed to the emergence of the surplus.   The\t sum\nstill in the hands of the company could not be treated as  a\nmatter only between the company and these present claimants.\nIndian Hume Pipe Co.,\t v. Their Workmen,<\/a> [1959] SUPP. 2\nS.C.R. 948.  L.L.I. 357, applied.\nReturn\ton invested capital had always to provide  for\tpure\ninterest plus compensation for the risks of business.  In  a\nparticular industry where the risk was appreciably less than\nusual there would be good cause for providing less than 6  %\n; and in an industry where extraordinary risks were run more\nthan  6%  could reasonably be provided for.   There  was  no\nunusual risk run by the appellants in their business and  no\ncase was made out for allowing any higher return on the paid\nup  capital or working capital.\t There was no  justification\nfor compensation of the entrepreneur for the fact that\twith\na small amount of capital considerable profits were earned.\nAs  fixed  capital  was\t liable\t to  gradual   deterioration\nreserves had to be created out of profits for replacing\t any\nportion\t of  it as soon as it became  too  deteriorated\t for\nefficient use.\tIt was neces-\n195\nsary  that the company's capital fund remained\tintact.\t  An\namount reasonably sufficient for the notional requirement of\nrehabilitation\tduring the relevant year was deducted  as  a\nprior  charge  in ascertaining surplus\tprofits\t from  which\nbonus could be paid.  The basis of the prior charge was\t the\nassumption that rehabilitation was a continuing process\t and\nneeded\tallotment  from year to year.  But  in\tthe  present\n'case  the  appellant had failed to make out  any  case\t for\nrehabilitation\t allowance  in\taddition  to  the   ordinary\ndepreciation.\nAssociated Cement Company's case, [1959] S.C.R. 925,  relied\non.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 209\/58.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the Award dated September\t 16,
\n1957  of  the  Industrial Tribunal  No.\t 11,  Ernakulam,  in
\nIndustrial Dispute No. 34 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
G.   B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur,for the appellants.
\nA.   V.\t Viswanatha  Sastri  and M. S. K.  Sastri,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1960.  March 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant-M\/s.  Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd.,
\nis a private limited company engaged in various\t enterprises
\nmainly\tin  South.   India.  It\t started  business  in\tthis
\ncountry\t over a century ago and though it is  registered  in
\nEngland almost all its activities appear to be carried on in
\nthis country.  The principal activities that require mention
\nare  the  business in cashew nuts which\t the  Company  sells
\nafter roasting raw cashew nuts purchased in this country and
\nin  Africa, and business in coir products and several  other
\ncountry\t produce like ginger, lemon grass oil etc.  A  large
\nportion\t of the products in which it trades is\texported  to
\nforeign countries.  Apart from these trading activities\t the
\ncompany is also engaged in agency business including working
\nas  managing agents of many companies.\tFor many  years\t the
\ncompany as a whole had made good profits, though in some  of
\nits  many lines, losses were incurred.\tThe company  has  on
\nits  pay  roll a large number of employees  and\t apart\tfrom
\nsuperior  officers in its covenanted and uncovenanted  staff
\nboth Indian and European it employs in its various lines  of
\nbusiness a large number of workmen including clerical staff.
\nThe
\n196<\/span>
\nclerical staff alone consists of 882 monthly paid employees.
\nFor many years the Company has voluntarily paid bonus to all
\nits  employees out of the surplus profits.  To\tthe  monthly
\npaid  employees\t with whom we are concerned in\tthe  present
\nappeal\tthe  company  paid during the  year  1954-55  a\t sum
\nequivalent  to\tthree  months’ basic wages  as\tbonus.\t Not
\ncontent\t with this these employees through their  Union\t put
\nforward\t a  claim  for\tadditional  bonus.   The  industrial
\ndispute\t thus raised was referred by the Government  to\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal  sitting  at  Coimbatore.\t Before\t the
\nTribunal  the workmen claimed an additional bonus  equal  to
\nseven months’ basic wages.  The company’s case was that\t the
\npeculiar nature of its activities specially the fact that in
\nits agency business very little capital was employed and the
\nfact that in the cashew business and other produce  business
\nthe  element  of risk was unusually treat  justify  material
\nalteration  in the Full Bench Formula for  ascertainment  of
\nthe  available\tsurplus\t in  several  respects.\t  The\tmain
\nalteration  asked  for before the Tribunal appears  to\thave
\nbeen that rates higher than 6% of paid up capital and 4%  on
\nreserves  employed as working capital should be, allowed  in
\nworking the Full Bench Formula in view of the special  risks
\nin  its\t business  and\tthe further  fact  that\t its  agency
\nbusiness  requires very little capital.\t These\tclaims\twere
\nrejected  by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal also accepted\tonly
\npartially  the\tcompany’s claims as  regards  rehabilitation
\nallowances  for the year and as regards actual amounts\tused
\nas  working capital.  Having arrived on its calculations  at
\nthe  figure of pound 55,137 as the available  surplus  after
\nmeeting all prior and necessary charges the Tribunal awarded
\nbonus equal to five months’ basic wages in addition to three
\nmonths’ basic wages already voluntarily paid by the company.
\nIn  making  this  distribution\tthe  Tribunal  rejected\t the
\ncompany’s case that as this claim was raised by only a small
\npercentage  of\tthe  workmen the  entire  available  surplus
\nshould not be treated as available in distributing bonus  to
\nthese few workmen.\n<\/p>\n
The  first contention urged in appeal before us is that\t the
\nTribunal was wrong in rejecting the com-\n<\/p>\n
197<\/span><\/p>\n
pany’s claim for higher return than usual on paid up capital
\nand  reserves  used  as working\t capital.   The\t appellants’
\ncounsel\t has  taken  us\t through  the  evidence,  oral\t and
\ndocumentary, as regards what he’ characterized as the  heavy
\n”  fluctuations ” in the price of raw cashew nuts which\t the
\ncompany had to purchase and the price in the foreign  market
\nof the finished goods.\tThat there is some amount of risk is
\nundoubtedly  true.   We are not convinced however  that\t the
\ncompany’s  business whether in cashew nuts or in  any  other
\nline is attended with such unusual risk as would justify the
\nprovision of more than the usual rate of return.  Return  on
\ninvested  capital  has always to provide for  pure  interest
\nplus compensation for the risks of the business.  Prevailing
\ninterest  in the money market yielded by giltedged  security
\nis  ordinarily\ttaken to be a fair index of what  should  be
\nconsidered reasonable as pure interest.\t For many years\t now
\nthis  figure has varied from 3 to 4 per cent.  If  no  risks
\nwere involved, this percentage should have been considered a
\nfair  return  on  invested  capital.   It  is  because\tmost
\nbusinesses  contain an element of risksome more\t some  less-
\nbecause\t of fluctuations, on the one hand in the  prices  of
\nraw  material and on the other hand in the effective  demand
\nfor  the  finished  goods-apart\t from  cyclical\t booms\t and
\ndepressions  that  an  additional  return  of  2  to  3%  is
\ngenerally considered necessary to compensate for the  risks.
\nIt  is\tin view of this that a return of  6%  is  ordinarily
\nconsidered  to be a fair return on the capital\tinvested  in
\nthe  shape  of paid up capital.\t In  a\tparticular  industry
\nwhere the risk is appreciably less than usual there will  be
\ngood cause for providing less than 6%.\tAnd similarly, in an
\nindustry  where\t extraordinary risks are run  more  than  6%
\nshould reasonably be provided for.\n<\/p>\n
If  therefore there was reason to think that  the  appellant
\ncompany’s  contention  that its business was  attended\twith
\nunusual risks was correct there would have been good  reason
\nto  allow a higher rate than 6% on the paid up\tcapital\t and
\nalso  a higher rate than 4% on the reserves used as  working
\ncapital.  We are not however satisfied that any such unusual
\nrisk is
\n198<\/span>
\nrun.   There is no more speculation in buying raw  nuts\t and
\nroasting  the same and selling them than there is,  say,  in
\nbuying\traw cotton in the market, spinning  yarn  therefrom,
\nmaking\tit into cloth and selling such cloth, or in  buying.
\nraw  jute,  spinning yarn therefrom weaving  it\t into  gunny
\ncloth  and selling the same.  No case for any higher  return
\non the paid up capital or working capital has been made
\nout by the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Nor  can  the fact that the agency business of\tthe  company
\ndoes not require much in the way of capital be considered to
\nbe  a reason for allowing a higher rate of return  in  those
\nlines.\tIf in the agency businesses considerable profits are
\nearned\twith a small amount of capital the  contribution  to
\nsuch  earning by labour including both those at the top\t and
\nthose  at the bottom is necessarily considerable.  There  is
\nno  justification for compensating the entrepreneur for\t the
\nfact  that  with  a small  amount  of  capital\tconsiderable
\nprofits are earned.\n<\/p>\n
This  brings  us  to  the  appellant’s\tcase  about   higher
\nrehabilitation\tallowance than what has been allowed by\t the
\nTribunal.   The\t company put its  claim\t for  rehabilitation
\nallowance  at the figure of pound, 31,780 but  the  Tribunal
\naccepted  only\ta sum of pound 9 11,250\t as  the  reasonable
\nfigure\ttowards\t statutory depreciation\t and  rehabilitation
\ntogether.   In support of its claim, the Company produced  a
\nnumber\tof  statements prepared by witnesses claimed  to  be
\nexperts\t  showing  the\treplacement  value   of\t  buildings,
\nmachinery, furniture and sundry plants which constituted the
\nfixed capital of the company.  Statements are also  produced
\nshowing\t the  further expectation of life of each  of  these
\nitems.\t The  services of a chartered accountant  firm\twere
\nalso  requisitioned  and we have on the record\ta  statement
\nshowing\t how the figures required for replacement have\tbeen
\nworked out for the various items of buildings, machinery and
\nfurniture and sundry plants.  According to Exhibit E-50, the
\nstatement on which great reliance was place by the  company,
\nthe   total  replacement  value\t of  its  assets   was\t RS.
\n1,08,02,330  made  up of Rs. 77,86,350\tfor  buildings,\t Rs.
\n18,52,320 for plants’ and machinery,’
\n199<\/span>
\nRs.  3,63,550  for  furniture and Rs.  8,00,110\t for  sundry
\nplants.\t Different items of buildings and machinery are\t put
\nin separate groups according as the replacement is necessary
\nin view of the residual age, during 1955-60, 1960-65,  1965-
\n70, 1970-75, 1975-80, 1980-85, 1985-90, 1990-95,  1995-2000,
\n2000-2005. 2005 is taken as. the last year, as the  residual
\nage is calculated from 1955 and the maximum residual age  is
\ntaken  to  be  50 years.  Exhibit E-43\tshows  the  detailed
\ncalculations on this basis how the sum of Rs. 77,86,335\t was
\narrived at as the replacement cost of buildings.  Exhibit E-
\n46 is a similar statement in respect of replacement costs of
\nplant  and  machinery.\tEx.  E-29A shows  how  after  taking
\nreserves  for  rehabilitation for the  different  groups  of
\nbuildings into consideration, the rehabilitation charge\t for
\nthe season 1952-53 is worked out at Rs. 19,878 for buildings
\nand the rehabilitation for plant and machinery is worked out
\nas  pound,  5,435.  Details are also given  as\tregards\t the
\ncalculation  of pound, 4,744 as the rehabilitation costs  to
\nbe  provided  for  sundry plants and  pound,  1,723  as\t the
\nrehabilitation costs for furniture in the year 1954-55.
\nThe  very fact that such care has been taken  in  furnishing
\ndetails to the Court inclines one prima, facie to accept the
\ncorrectness   of  these\t figures  without   much   scrutiny.
\nScrutiny is however very much needed before the figures\t and
\nthe  calculations are ,accepted.  Mention may first be\tmade
\nof the fact that though it was stated by the witness who  is
\nresponsible for the preparation of the replacement costs  of
\nthe  machinery\tthat he obtained quotations  from  different
\nfirms,\tno such quotation has been placed on record.   That,
\nas  the Tribunal itself recognized, affected very  much\t the
\nvalue  of  these figures.  As however after  mentioning\t the
\ninfirmities  of the evidence the Tribunal decided to  accept
\nas_a  reasonably  accurate  statement  this  figure  of\t Rs.
\n1,08,02,330  as\t the  total replacement value  we  need\t not
\nconsider  whether we ourselves would have been\tprepared  to
\naccept the evidence if the matter was being considered by us
\nin the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
200<\/span><\/p>\n
A more serious question however is whether the basis adopted
\nby the appellant’s expert for the calculation of this sum as
\nthe  replacement costs to be provided over the years in\t the
\napplication  of the Full Bench Formula can be accepted.\t  As
\nthe  appellant’s expert himself has stated the value he\t has
\ngiven as the rehabilitation cost for any particular building
\nis  on the basis of what would be required to  construct  a,
\nsimilar building if the existing building was pulled down in
\n1955.\tHe  has\t proceeded on the same way  as\tregards\t the
\nmachinery  and other assets.  The Tribunal  after  accepting
\nthe  figure  of Rs. 1,08,02,330 as the\tcorrect\t figure\t for
\nreplacement  deducted  the  sum which  in  its\topinion\t was
\navailable  in the reserves towards such\t rehabilitation\t and
\nthen  divided the remainder by 50 as 50 years would  be\t the
\nperiod\tthat  these buildings and machinery  would  last  if
\nreplaced in 1955 by new buildings and new machinery.
\nIt  has been urged before us that the Tribunal was wrong  in
\ndividing  the  sum  obtained after the total  amount  to  be
\nprovided was ascertained by 50 inasmuch as the figure of Rs.
\n1,08,02,330  was itself arrived at on the basis of  the\t sum
\nthat  would have to be provided for the different groups  of
\nbuildings  and\tthe sum to be provided in  1954-55  for\t all
\nthese  different groups should have been accepted  at  these
\nfigures worked out in Exhibit E-29A.\n<\/p>\n
It  appears  to\t us  that this method  of  arriving  at\t the
\nrehabilitation costs to be provided in a particular year  is
\nnot  useful and cannot be safely relied upon. To  understand
\nthe  fallacy of the method applied we may briefly state\t the
\nlogic behind the provisions for rehabilitation.\t Because the
\nfixed  capital\tof  any industry is the\t victim\t of  gradual
\ndeterioration  the prudent businessman creates reserves\t out
\nof  his profits so that as soon as any portion of the  fixed
\ncapital has become too deteriorated for efficient working it
\nmay  be replaced.  The economic welfare of the country as  a
\nwhole no less than the interests of the businessman requires
\nthat  the company’s capital fund should remain :Intact.\t  It
\nis for this reason that an amount reasonably sufficient\t for
\nthe  notional  requirement  of\trehabilitation\tduring\t the
\nrelevant
\n201<\/span>
\nyear  is deducted as a prior charge in ascertaining  suprlus
\nprofits\t from  which bonus can be paid.\t The  basis  of\t the
\nprior  charge  is the assumption that  rehabilitation  is  a
\ncontinuing process and so needs allotment from year to year.
\nThat is why it has now been held that if the amount allotted
\nfor  a\tspecific year is not used, it should be\t taken\tinto
\naccount in the later year.\n<\/p>\n
This  has been recognized in the Full Bench Formula and\t has
\nreceived  the authoritative recognition from this  Court  in
\nnumerous cases.\t A full discussion of the principle involved
\ncan be found in Associated Cement Company’s Case (1).  It is
\nimportant to note what was pointed out there as regards\t the
\nreplacement  value  being calculated on the  basis  of\twhat
\nwould be required to replace the fixed assets in question at
\nthe  date when replacement is due.  One way of\tascertaining
\nthat was to multiply the original cost, by the figure  which
\nwould  reflect\tthe expected rise or fall in prices  at\t the
\ndate  for  replacement.\t  After\t the  replacement  cost\t  is
\nascertained  it is necessary to deduct therefrom the  amount
\nalready\t lying in reserves for this purpose and then to\t see
\nover  what period the balance will have to be found.   There
\nwill  no doubt be difficulties in the way of estimating\t the
\nreplacement  costs in this manner, but that  cannot  justify
\nthe  attempt  at  over simplification  by  working  out\t the
\nreplacement cost on the hypothesis that replacement cost  at
\nthe  date of replacement will be the same as on the  present
\ndate.  If the prices fall in the meantime too much will have
\nbeen  set  apart  for rehabilitation,  if  prices  rise\t too
\nlittle.\t  To take the instance of buildings which  form\t the
\ngreater\t portion of the assets of the appellant company,  it
\nmay well be that by the time some of these buildings require
\nreplacement, the cost of construction will have become\tless
\nthan  at  the  present\ttime by\t reason\t of  more  efficient
\nproduction of cement and steel in the country.\tSo, also the
\nprice  of machinery some years later, may well be less\tthan
\nthe price now, by reason of such machinery being produced in
\nour own country.  The layman’s apprehension that prices rise
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. 925.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span>
\n202<\/span><\/p>\n
never  to fall again cannot be accepted as a  correct  basis
\nfor calculation of the replacement cost on a future date.
\nThe entire basis of the calculation of the replacement\tcost
\nby the appellant’s experts is what such costs will be if the
\nbuilding  was pulled down or the machinery scrapped in\t1955
\nand had to be replaced by a new machinery on that date.\t His
\nestimate  of  the  replacement\tcost  cannot  therefore\t  be
\naccepted  as  a\t sure  basis  for  any\tcalculation  of\t the
\nrehabilitation costs to be provided.\n<\/p>\n
It is unnecessary therefore to go into the further  question
\nas to whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the sum
\nof  pound 20,000\/- and also another sum of pound  44,760  as
\navailable  towards rehabilitation.  We may however  indicate
\nthat  if it were necessary to go into the question we  would
\nhave probably hesitated to hold that these sums were not  in
\nfact available for rehabilitation.\n<\/p>\n
A  strict view of the evidence thus justifies a.  conclusion
\nthat  the appellant company has failed to make out any\tcase
\nfor  rehabilitation  allowance in addition to  the  ordinary
\ndepreciation.\tAs  however  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent   did  not  challenge  the  correctness  of\t the
\nallowance  of pound,11,250 assessed by the Tribunal  as\t the
\ntotal\tallowances   towards  statutory\t  depreciation\t and
\nrehabilitation\ttogether  it would be proper  to  apply\t the
\nformula on that basis.\n<\/p>\n
The  other question in dispute was as regards the amount  of
\nreserves actually used as working capital.  Out of what\t was
\nclaimed\t by  the  company as reserves  employed\t as  working
\ncapital\t the  Tribunal\tdisallowed two items.\tOne  was  in
\nrespect\t of  a sum of pound 2,09,339 which appeared  in\t the
\nbalance-sheet  as provision for taxation liability;  another
\nwas  an\t item  of  pound 8,250\tas  provision  for  proposed
\ndividend  on deferred ordinary shares.\tThe Tribunal was  of
\nopinion\t that the company had not made any attempt to  prove
\nthat  these amounts had actually been used in the  business.
\nThe  appellant\tcontends before us that a  scrutiny  of\t the
\nbalance-sheet  is sufficient to satisfy any one\t that  these
\namounts had actually been employed as working
\n203<\/span>
\ncapital.   It is stressed in this connection that  when\t the
\nbalance-sheets\twere put in evidence through  the  company’s
\nofficer no challenge as to the correctness of the  statement
\nmade  therein  Was  made in  cross-examination.\t  Though  no
\ndirect\tchallenge  to  the  correctness\t of  the  statements
\nappearing  in  the  balancesheets about\t the  value  of\t the
\ndifferent  assets appears to have been made it is  important
\nto notice that the employer’s witness No. 2 through whom the
\nbalancesheets  and  the\t profit and  loss  accounts  of\t the
\ncompany were put in evidence was asked in  cross-examination
\nas  regards  the discrepancy between the statements  in\t the
\nbalance-sheet  E-8  where the bank overdraft  was  shown  as
\npound1,95,990  and the statement Exhibit E-12  which  showed
\nthe  bank  overdraft  in June 1955 as 37-5  lakhs  which  is
\nequivalent to pound 2,75,000.  The difference being of about
\npound80,000, the witness was asked which is correct, whether
\nE-8  or E-127 and when the witness answered that  both\twere
\ncorrect,  he  was  asked “how”.\t His answer-was\t “I  do\t not
\nknow”.\n<\/p>\n
It  may be that there is a satisfactory explanation of\tthis
\ndifference  but\t the evidence on record\t does  not  disclose
\nthis.\tWhen there remains prima facie such  discrepancy  as
\nregards the very important figure as regards bank  overdraft
\nthe Tribunal would well be justified in refusing to base any
\nconclusion  on the valuation of different assets  as  stated
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
There is apart from this the important fact that the company
\nitself\tdoes  not claim that whatever appears to be  on\t the
\nasset side over and above the paid up capital has come\tfrom
\nthe reserves.  Exhibit E-30 is the statement prepared by the
\ncompany’s  Chartered Accountant to show\t “Reconciliation  of
\nworking\t capital as on 30th June, 1958.” It arrives  at\t the
\nfigure of pound6,05,564 as the working capital by  deducting
\nfrom the current assets as per balance-sheet as on June\t 30,
\n1955,  six  out of nine items under “Current  liabilities  &
\nprovisions”,-3\titems  not  deducted  are  those  under\t (1)
\nliability for taxation other than U.K. Income-tax,(2)  proposed
\ndividend on deferred ordinary shares and (3) capital profits
\non proposed distribution.  The obvious reason for  deducting
\nthe  six  items\t from the current assets to  arrive  at\t the
\nworking capital is that
\n204<\/span>
\nthese items in the balance-sheets under current\t liabilities
\nand provision would have to be met during the year out of  a
\nportion\t  of  the  current  assets,  which   portion   would
\naccordingly not be available for use as working capital.  If
\nthat  is the case as regards the other items  under  current
\nliabilities  and provisions it is not clear why that  should
\nnot  also  be the case as regards  the\tcurrent\t liabilities
\nunder “liabilities for taxation other than U.K.\t Income-tax”
\nand  under “proposed dividend on deferred ordinary  shares”.
\nIn  the\t absence  of evidence to the contrary  there  is  no
\nground\tfor thinking that these current liabilities had\t not
\nalso  to be met out of the current assets during  the  year.
\nNo  such  evidence  has\t been  produced.   The\tTribunal  is
\ntherefore  right in our opinion in rejecting  the  company’s
\nclaim  that  these  amounts were also  employed\t as  working
\ncapital.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the other prior charges there is no dispute.\t The
\nTribunal applying the Full Bench Formula on the basis of the
\ndifferent  findings hold after deducting the  bonus  already
\npaid  voluntarily by the company that the company had  still
\nin its hand a sum of pound55,137 out of which it could pay a
\nreasonable amount to these workmen.\n<\/p>\n
When  deciding\thow  much out  of  this\t pound956,137  could
\nreasonably be paid as additional bonus to these workmen\t the
\nTribunal had to consider the contention raised on behalf  of
\nthe appellant-company that it would be unfair-to ignore\t the
\nfact  that  not these staff members alone but  11,247  other
\nworkmen\t as well have contributed to the emergence  of\tthis
\nsurplus.   The appellant’s argument was that  staff  members
\nwho have raised this dispute should not be allowed to  steal
\nan advantage over the numerous other workers of the  company
\nand  that just as results of the different branches  of\t the
\ncompany\t have been considered as a whole in arriving at\t the
\nfigure of available surplus it is just and proper that these
\nworkmen\t who have raised the dispute should be given only  a
\nfair  share out of that portion of the surplus which may  be
\nconsidered  properly  payable  to all  the  workmen  of\t the
\ncompany.   In  dealing with this question the  Tribunal\t has
\nsaid
\n205<\/span>
\n”  But\tthe fortune of the 11,247 workers  depend  upon\t the
\ntrading results of the department in which they are working;
\nthe bonus of the workers is decided compartment-wise and not
\non the basis of the overall profits of the company.   Cashew
\nworkers\t are given bonus on the basis of the cashew  depart-
\nment  profits and not on the basis of the total\t profits  of
\nthe  company.  The staff members are transferable  from\t one
\ndepartment  to\tanother\t and  from  one\t branch\t to  another
\nbranch.”\n<\/p>\n
We  are not able to understand how in spite of the  way\t the
\ncompany’s  balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts\thave
\nbeen kept the different departments of the company could  be
\ntreated separately for the purposes of bonus.  The mere fact
\nthat  the  company has actually done so does not  make\tsuch
\ndistribution  right.  Obviously if cashew workers  would  in
\nfact be entitled to a larger bonus on the overall results of
\nthe  company they have been unfairly treated by the  company
\nin  having  been given lesser bonus on the basis  of  cashew
\ndepartment profits.  It is urged on behalf of  the,appellant
\nthat  the  fact\t that the workmen  other  than\tthese  staff
\nmembers have got less than they would have been entitled  to
\ndoes not justify the grant of a larger share to the  present
\nworkmen\t than what they would be entitled to if those  other
\nworkmen had been given a fair share.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court had to deal with a somewhat similar position  in
\nIndian\tHume Pipe Co. v. Their Workmen<\/a>(1).  The\t respondents
\nthere  were  workmen  only  of\tthe  Wadala  factory.\t The
\nappellant  had however paid to various workmen elsewhere  as
\nand by way of bonus varying between 4% and 29% of the  basic
\nwages  for the year in question.  It was clear that the\t sum
\nof  Rs.\t 1,23,138\/only\thad  been paid\tin  full  and  final
\nsettlement  to the workmen in some of the factories and\t the
\nbonus  calculations on an all-India basis would work to\t the
\nadvantage  of the appellant, in so far as they would  result
\nin  saving  to the appellant of the difference\tbetween\t the
\namounts\t to which those workmen would be entitled to on\t the
\nbasis  of the all-India figures adopted by the tribunal\t and
\nthe amounts actually
\n(1)  [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 948.\n<\/p>\n
206<\/span><\/p>\n
paid  to  them as a result of  agreements,  conciliation  or
\nadjudication.  On behalf of the respondents it was therefore
\ncontended that the calculations should be made after  taking
\ninto account the savings thus effected:.  Dealing with\tthis
\ncontention  this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
” We are afraid we cannot  accept this contention.  If\tthis
\ncontention  was\t accepted, the respondents before  us  would
\nhave  an advantage over those workmen with whom\t settlements
\nhave been made and would get larger amounts by way of  bonus
\nmerely by reason of the fact that the appellant had  managed
\nto  settle the claims of those workmen ,at  lesser  figures.
\nIf  this  contention of the respondents was  pushed  to\t its
\nlogical extent, it would also mean that in the event of\t the
\nnon-fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the tribunal  in
\nthe  award of bonus herein bringing in savings in the  hands
\nof the appellant, the respondents would be entitled to\ttake
\nadvantage of those savings also and should be awarded larger
\namounts by way of bonus, which would really be the result of
\nthe  claimants entitled to the same not receiving  it  under
\ncertain\t circumstances-an  event which would  be  purely  an
\nextraneous one and unconnected with the contribution of\t the
\nrespondents   towards  the  gross  profits  earned  by\t the
\nappellant.    The   tribunal  was,   therefore,\t  right\t  in
\ncalculating the bonus on an all-India basis.”
\nThough\tin  the present case there has been  no\t settlement”
\nstrictly  speaking  with the other workers  in\tthe  various
\nbranches, the considerations which weighed with the Court in
\nthe  above  case are fully applicable to this case  and\t the
\nTribunal must be held to have committed an error in treating
\nthe  sum still in the hands of the company as a matter\tonly
\nbetween the company and these present claimants.
\nIn  deciding  what  relief may reasonably be  given  to\t the
\nappellant  company in view of this error in  the  Tribunal’s
\napproach to the question of distribution of the amount still
\navailable,  we have however to take into account two  errors
\nwhich  have been made by the Tribunal in this connection  in
\nfavour\t of  the  appellant.   One  of\tthese  is  that\t  in
\ndistributing the available
\n207<\/span>
\nsurplus\t the  Tribunal\tomitted to  take  into\taccount\t the
\nimportant fact that a sum of no less than  pound1,10,000\/has
\nbeen capitalised out of the reserves at the beginning of the
\nyear.  The second error was that the Tribunal in saying that
\nafter  paying  8 months’ bonus there is a balance  of  pound
\n34,397 with the employer, omitted to take into consideration
\nthe  fact that the company would also have the benefit of  a
\nlarge  amount as income-tax rebate in respect of  the  bonus
\npaid to its clerical staff.\n<\/p>\n
Taking all these facts into consideration we are of  opinion
\nthat  a\t fair  order would be to award to  the\tstaff  bonus
\nequivalent  to\t3  months’ basic wages in  addition  to\t the
\namount already paid voluntarily.\n<\/p>\n
We therefore allow the appeal in part and in modification of
\nthe award made by the Industrial Tribunal award to the staff
\nof  M\/s.   Peirce Leslie Co., Ltd., bonus  equivalent  to  3
\nmonths’\t basic\twages  in addition  to\tthe  amount  already
\nvoluntarily paid by the company.  There will be no order  as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal partly allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 826, 1960 SCR (3) 194 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: M\/S. PEIRCE LESLIE & CO., LTD., KOZHIKODE Vs. RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/03\/1960 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS […]<\/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-98217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 - 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\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-10T23:35:16+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T23:35:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\"},\"wordCount\":4470,\"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\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T23:35:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 - 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\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-10T23:35:16+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960","datePublished":"1960-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T23:35:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960"},"wordCount":4470,"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\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960","name":"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T23:35:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peirce-leslie-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-9-march-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Peirce Leslie & Co., Ltd., … vs Their Workmen on 9 March, 1960"}]},{"@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\/98217","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=98217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}