B.N. Banerjee, J.
1. This is an application by the workmen of Standard Pharmaceutical Works, Limited, for a writ of certiorari for quashing an award made by an industrial tribunal.
2. Several industrial disputes between Standard Pharmaceutical Works, Limited, and its workmen were referred by the State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication before the fourth industrial tribunal. The disputes included (issue 1) revision of pay, (issue 2) introduction of grades, (issue 3) overtime wages for drivers and other workers of the motor vehicles department and (issue 7) Whether the workmen would be entitled to get any additional bonus for the year 1956-57? I am not concerned in this rule with the other disputes which were referred to the industrial tribunal.
3. The industrial tribunal, by its award, which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 24 June 1959, answered issues 1, 2 and 7 in the negative, that is to say, it refused either to revise the pay or to introduce grades or to award any additional bonus to the workmen for the year 1956-57. So far as issue 3 was concerned, the tribunal granted an increase limited to one and one-half time of the wage, in place of twice the ordinary rate of wages claimed by the workmen.
4. Aggrieved by the award, the workmen of Standard Pharmaceutical Works, Limited, moved this Court and obtained the present rule.
5. Sri Arun Kumar Dutt (Sr.), learned Advocate for the petitioners, did not ultimately dispute the award by the tribunal on issues 1 and 2, although, at one stage, he had contended that the tribunal should have introduced a scale of pay amongst the work men. Regard being had to the attitude taken by Sri Dutt, I do not interfere with the award of the tribunal on issues 1 and 2.
6. So far as issue 3 is concerned, Sri Dutt contended that the tribunal was wrong in not fixing the overtime wages for drivers and other workers of the motor department of the respondent company, in accordance with the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Factories Act which reads as follows:
59. (1) Where a worker works in a factory for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall, in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.
7. In this contention Sri Dutt is right. The drivers and workers in the motor department of the respondent company certainly carry on work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process of the respondent company. They are, therefore, workers within the meaning of the definition of 'worker' in Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. The Factories Act makes a definite provision regarding the amount of overtime wages to be paid to factory workers. The tribunal was wrong in overlooking that provision and in being guided by extraneous provision contained in Motor Vehicles Act. I, therefore, hold that the tribunal was wrong in not allowing overtime wages at the rate of twice the workers' ordinary rate of wages and in delimiting the same to one and one-half time of the ordinary rates. The aforesaid portion of the award, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
8. So far as issue 7 is concerned, Sri Dutt contended that the tribunal was wrong in holding that Rs. 1,70,000 was being employed by the respondent company, out of reserve, as the working capital and the net profit of the respondent company, at the foot of the profit and loss account, should be reduced by four per cent on the sald sum of Rs. 1,70,000 for the purpose of calculation of bonus. Sri Dutt further contended that the tribunal was wrong in taking into consideration an imaginary amount as statutory depreciation, namely, Rs. 1,25,195 instead of the actual depreciation charged in the accounts of the Company, namely, Rs. 90,074. He contended that if the sum of Rs. 90,074 only had been allowed as depreciation and if an imaginary sum of Rs. 6,800 representing a four per cent return on Rs. 1,70,000 had not been deducted, there would have been left an amount out of which some additional bonus might be paid to the workmen. In my opinion, Sri Dutt is right in this contention. The Supreme Court deprecated the deduction of any amount as depreciation excepting notional normal depreciation charges, vide Associated Cement Companies, Limited v. Their workmen 1960--I L.L.J. 491 and the tribunal was wrong in allowing an imaginary sum of Rs. 1,25,195 as statutory depreciation charges. Further the tribunal assumed that the sum of Rs. 1,70,000 must have been applied out of reserve to the working capital. This the tribunal did without any evidence whatsoever. The net result is that the tribunal's calculation is not correct and its conclusions are erroneous on the face of it. For the reasons aforesaid, the tribunal's award on issue 7 also deserves to be quashed.
9. Apart from this, the other portions of the tribunal's award need not be interfered with and I leave the same untouched. The award is quashed only in respect of issues 3 and 7 and the rest of it is upheld.
10. Let a writ of certiorari accordingly issue. This rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.