If bonus contemplated to be paid under the Act is intended to make an equitable distribution of the surplus profits of a particular year, a scheme for computing labour’s share 46 which cannot be less than the amount determined by the application of a ratio derived from the working of the base year without taking into consideration the special circumstances Chandigarh lawyers governing that determination is ex facie arbitrary and unreasonable.
But the validity of a statute is subject to judicial scrutiny advocate in Chandigarh the context of fundamental freedoms guaranteed to employers as well as employees and the freedom of equal protection of the laws becomes lawyers chimerical, if the only ground in support of the validity of a statute ex facie discriminatory is that the Parliament intended, inconsistently with the very concept of bonus evolved by it, to maintain for the benefit of labour an advantage which labour had obtained in an earlier year based on the special circumstances of that year, without any enquiry Whether that, advantage may reasonably be granted in subsequent years according to the principle evolved by it and for securing the object of the Act.
During the best lawyer in Chandigarh years 1961 and 1962, the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court called for applications for recruitment to ten vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial top Chandigarh legal service from Barristers, best advocates in Chandigarh, Vakils and Pleaders of more than seven years’ standing and from “judicial officers”. ” We are unable to agree with Mr. “Employee” is defined in s. 1(4) save as otherwise provided in the Act, the provisions of the Act shall, in relation to a factory or other establishment to which the Act applies, have effect in respect of the accounting year commencing on any day in the year 1964 and in respect of every subsequent accounting year.
It follows that the Court of Appeal in the present case did not fall into the error suggested, of wrongly starting with the words of the Act. It is unnecessary to decide legal in Chandigarh this appeal how an award of interest should be made available in those circumstances (and the court has heard no argument on the point). It seems to us that the Privy Council was thinking of and comparing the responsibility of the Governor for the orders passed by the delegate and by an officer acting under s.
34(2) was not invalid because the ratio was intended to stabilize the previous grant of bonus and to maintain in favour of labour whatever was achieved by collective bargaining in the base year. 194 of that Act, sixty-seven per cent of the available surplus in an accounting year; (b) in any other case, sixty per cent of such available surplus, and includes any amount treated as such under sub-s. That is because section 35A applies only where there are proceedings for the recovery of a debt (or damages), and therefore does not apply where the defendant has repaid the debt (or has set it off) before the creditor has commenced proceedings for its recovery.
The expression “judicial officers” is a euphemism for the members of the Executive department who discharge some revenue and magisterial duties. But there are a number of potential solutions. The Additional Solicitor- General appearing for the Union of India and the representatives of the Labour Unions and counsel appearing for them contended in support of their plea that s. The provisions of the Act and its scheme may now be sum- marised.
2(6) as meaning the available surplus computed under s. The Selection Committee constituted under the U. If the concept of bonus as allocation of an equitable share of the surplus profits of an establishment to the workmen who have contributed to the earning has reality, any condition that the ratio on which the share of one party computed on the basis of the working of an earlier year, without taking into consideration the special circumstances which had a bearing on the earning of the profits and payment of bonus in that year, shall not be touched, is in our judgment, arbitrary and unreasonable.
34 imposes a special liability to pay bonus determined on the gross profits of the base year on an assumption that the ratio which determines the allocable surplus is the normal ratio not affected by any special circumstance and prepetuates for the duration of the Act that ratio for determining the minimum allocable surplus each year. On a literal reading of section 35A, no such interest could have been awarded on the claims under category (a).
On the contrary, that is the inevitable first port of call for any issue of construction, as Lord Reid’s statement of the principle in Sweet v Parsley expressly stated. “Available surplus” is defined in s. The Payment of Bonus Act was published on September 25, 1965. 1, of the Act of 1935 the Governor remains responsible for the action of his subordinates taken in his name. Garg that the Privy Council laid down that the Governor was divested of its power of passing an order when the above notification was issued.
The facts may be briefly stated. An award of interest is nevertheless required in such circumstances by EU best law firms in Chandigarh, if an effective restitutionary remedy is to be available under English best Chandigarh law firm in respect of San Giorgio claims: that was the point decided in Metallgesellschaft. Section 2(4) defines ” allocable surplus” as meaning (a) in relation to an employer, being a company (other than a banking company) which has not made the arrangements prescribed under the Income-tax Act for the declaration and payment within India of the dividends payable out of its profits in accordance with the provisions of s.
Thus these three recent cases are good illustrations of the truism that the presumption on which the appellants here rely is a principle of statutory construction, which must give way to either the plain meaning of the words, or to other relevant pointers to meaning which clearly demonstrate what was intended.