The shareholders only would be entitled to such benefit and the mere fact that dividends were declared and paid to the shareholders out of such reserves and undistributed profits would 1001 not entitle the workers to demand bonus when in fact the working of the industrial concern during the particular year had showed a loss. For reasons stated above we are of opinion that Act XXII of 1947 which amended the Indian Income-tax Act by enlarging the definition of the term income in section 2(6-C) and introducing a new head of income in section 6 and inserting the new section 12-B is intra vires the powers of the Central Legislature acting under entry 54 in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935.
There may be special cases, and we consider the case Lawyers in Chandigarh before us to be one, where social justice would demand that labour should have bonus for the year where for that very year capital had not only a. Having answered that question, nothing further needs to be done, especially when the challenge stood negated on merits. Advocate in Chandigarh these appeals challenge on merits was negated but one of the issues raised was regarding competence of CO of a unit other than the one to which the accused belonged, to convene constitute and complete SCM.
Considerations of social justice cannot be disregarded altogether, in relations between capital and labour. 19) Before parting, we consider it proper to mention here that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy but confined our inquiry only to examine whether the Advocates in Chandigarh second appeal involved any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for us to consider or express any opinion as to the meaning, scope and ambit of entry 55 in that List.
The employees would in no event be entitled to any share or interest in the assets and the capital of the company. ” The Labour Appellate Tribunal did not accept the contention of the respondent that bonus should be linked to dividends nor did it rest its decision on the respondent having a right, title and interest Lawyers in Chandigarh the reserves and the undistributed profits of the appellant. ” But, in our opinion, that should not be the universal rule.
The matters coming from the High Court of Rajasthan, namely Civil Appeal Nos. 6679 of 2015 stand on a different footing. We therefore affirm the view taken by the High Court and dismiss these appeals. A transfer of moneys from these reserves or the undistributed profits would therefore not enure for the benefit of the workers. , which is to the following effect:- it is the quality of the act that is important, and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties, the protection contemplated by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code will be attracted.
(3)No reference made by the Central Government under sub- section, (1), at any time before the first day of September, 1948, shall be called in question, nor shall the sufficiency of the material on which such a reference has been made be investigated in any manner by any Court. The Court referred to the observations of Ramaswami, J. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection of Section 197(1), an act constituting an offence, directly and reasonably connected with his official duty will require sanction for prosecution under the said provision.
Because if that theory was accepted a company would not declare any dividends but accumulate the profits, build up reserves and distribute those profits in the shape of bonus shares or reduce the capital in which event the workers would not be entitled to claim anything as and by way of bonus. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section.
Linking of bonus to dividend would obviously create difficulties. 2547-2550 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. Even on a winding up of a company the property of the company would be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities pari passu and, unless the articles of association of the company otherwise provided, in distribution amongst the members according to their rights and interest in the company. reasonable return but much in excess of that. Since we have held that the appeal does involve the substantial questions of law and hence we have requested the High Court to formally admit the appeal and frame substantial questions of law and then answer them finally on merits in accordance with the law.
The workers not being members of the company would also not have any right, title and interest in the reserves or the undistributed profits which would form part of the assets of the company.