If in any particular year the working of the industrial concern has resulted in loss there is no basis nor justification for a demand for bonus. ; Was the High Court also right in holding that s. The question which arises for our decision in the present appeals, therefore, is one of limitation; it has to be considered in two aspects: Was the High Court right in holding that art. The rate fixed by the Reference Court for the lands acquired in the year 1957 was at Rs. An appeal by certificate would then be maintainable as a matter of right divorce advocate in Chandigarh view of Section 30 which uses the expression “an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court”.
“There are however two conditions which have to be satisfied before a demand for bonus can be justified, and they are, (1) when wages fall short of the living standard and (2) the industry makes huge profits part of which are due to the contribution which the workmen make in increasing production. There is no doubt that there must be contribution of the workmen in earning profits before they are entitled to profit bonus; -(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court Advocate in Chandigarh High Court which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.
This notice was followed by the Guravs’ Suit No. Likewise the rate fixed for the land acquired in the year 1962 was at Rs. But further down on the same page his Lordship said:- Any way, article 32 of the Constitution gives us very wide discretion in the matter of framing our writs to suit the exigencies of particular cases, and the application of the petitioner cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that the proper writ or direction has not been prayed for “.
” It is clear from these observations that this Court was not dealing with the question of extraneous income as such in the Muir Mills Case (1). 15 of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947, applies to contracts also as they would fall under the provisions of the law relating to contracts; Held : (1) that the non-obstante clause ” Notwithstanding anything contained in any law ” in s. B- 12, 13 and 15 are the copies of the orders/awards passed by the Reference Court Anticipatory Bail Advocate in Chandigarh relation to the lands acquired in 1986 and 1987.
The principles laid down in that case show that there must be profits in the particular year for which bonus is claimed, resulting Counsels in Chandigarh High Court an available surplus before profit bonus can be awarded. 124 of the Limitation Act. This suit was seriously contested but in the end the Guravs lost and -their suit was dismissed on January 31, 1918. 120 applies and that the cause of action accrued more than six years before the dates of the institution of the present suits ? 106/- per square feet. 23 does not apply to the suits ?
It was alleged on their behalf that some of the plaintiffs had been dismissed and others had resigned their employments and so all of them had lost their rights. It is this last condition which seems to have been relied upon by industrial tribunals in holding that there must be direct connection between the efforts of labour and the profits, and unless that direct connection is established the profits must be treated as unrelated to the efforts of labour and thus become extraneous income.
The scheme of Section 31 being that an application for grant of a certificate must first be moved before the Tribunal, before the aggrieved party can approach this Court for the grant of leave to file an appeal. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. The rate fixed for the land acquired in the year 1986 was at Rs. Section 301(1) CrPC that deals with the appearance by Public Prosecutors reads thus:- 301. That appears to us to be the true legal position on a plain reading of the provisions of Sections 30 and 31.
In the suit the plaintiffs claimed declaration about their rights of ownership and asked for consequential reliefs. This claim was denied by the 494 trustees who claimed the right to dismiss the Guravs. Rege has contended that in substance, in their present suits the appellants have made a claim for possession of an hereditary office and as such they would be governed by art. On behalf of the appellants Mr. 40/- per square feet and for the lands acquired in the year 1976, the rate was at Rs.
It is only when profits are made that profit bonus can be awarded, subject to two further conditions, namely, (1) wages fall short of the living standard and (2) the industry makes large profits part of which are due to the contribution which the workmen make _in production. 100/- per square feet and for the land acquired in the year 1987, the rate was Rs. ” It was further observed at page 999- ” It is therefore clear that the claim for bonus can be made by the employees only if as a result of the joint contribution of capital and labour the industrial concern has earned profits.
The purpose underlying the provision appears to be that if the Tribunal itself grants a certificate of fitness for filing an appeal, it would be unnecessary for the aggrieved party to approach this Court for a leave to file such an appeal.