Judgment R.L.Narasimham, J. 1. These two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arise out of an award, dated the 16th January, 1967, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, on a reference made to it by the State Government in respect of the following questions: "(a) Whether a sum of Rs. 18,086 provided for in the profit and loss account as provision for rebate to consumers in accordance with the 6th Schedule of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 should be added back to arrive at the Gross Profit for the said accounting year in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act? If so, whether this amount should also be deducted from the gross profit to arrive at availabe surplus? (b) Whether deduction of following amounts from the gross profit is in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act: (i) Rs. 23,455 on account of development rebate allowable under the Income-Tax Act. (ii) Rs. 35,682 on account of development reserve." 2. The award of the Tribunal in respect of questions (a) and (b) (i) above was against the employer (hereinafter referred to as the company), which filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 121 of 1967, challenging that portion of the award. As regards question (b)(ii), the award was against the workmen, and they filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 137 of 1967, challenging that portion of the award. The two references heard together, and will be disposed of in one judgment. 3. The company is a licensee, being an electric supply company which is governed both by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The workmen were represented by the Loyabad Power House Workers Union. 4. The dispute between the company and the workmen arose in respect of the permissible additions and deductions to be made to the profits for the purpose of ascertaining the bonus payable to the workmen under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The balance-sheet of the company for the year ending 31st March, 1965, showing the profit and loss account, was duly published, and there was a controversy between the company and its workmen as regards three items mentioned in the profit and loss account. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. The balance-sheet of the company for the year ending 31st March, 1965, showing the profit and loss account, was duly published, and there was a controversy between the company and its workmen as regards three items mentioned in the profit and loss account. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. 18,086, representing the rebate payable to the consumers under paragraph II(i) of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ; the second one relates to a sum of Rs. 23,455 on account of development rebate allowable under the Income-Tax Act, 1961; and the third one relates to a sum of Rs. 35,682 on account of development reserve. Each of these items will be discussed separately. 5. The scheme of the Bonus Act, 1965, is well known. The net profits of a company are taken as the basis, and certain additions are made to it as provided in Sec. 4 of the said Act to compute the gross profits. Out of the said gross profits, certain deductions are made as provided in Sec. 6 of the said Act and the Third Schedule with a view to ascertain the available surplus. Out of the available surplus, the allocable surplus [as defined in Sec.2(4) of the Act] is calculated and then the bonus payable to the workmen is computed, in accordance with the other provisions of the Act. Sec.23 of that Act further says that the balance-sheet of the Company, which has been fully audited under Sec.226(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, may be presumed to be accurate in respect of the particulars stated therein unless the contrary is shown. It is not denied that the balance-sheet of the company was duly audited as required by law. Hence, the figures shown in the balance-sheet must be presumed to be correct unless the party challenging the correctness of any particular entry in the balance-sheet proves the contrary. 6. Rebate to consumer -- Rebate to consumer is provided in paragraph 11(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 . As provided in that paragraph, if the "clear profit" of a licensee exceeds the amount of reasonable return, the excess is divided into three equal parts. 6. Rebate to consumer -- Rebate to consumer is provided in paragraph 11(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 . As provided in that paragraph, if the "clear profit" of a licensee exceeds the amount of reasonable return, the excess is divided into three equal parts. One part is placed at the disposal of the undertaking; the second part is set apart as Tariffs and Dividends Control Reserve; and the third part is kept for distribution in the form of a proportionate rebate on the amounts collected from the sale of electricity and meter rentals or carried forward in the accounts of the license for distribution to the consumer in future in such manner as the State Government may direct. It will be noticed that this part, which is set apart for the purpose of proportionate rebate to the consumer, has not been described as a reserve in paragraph 11(1) of the said Schedule. It is intended to be returned to the consumer in the form of a rebate, the basic assumption being that the price for electricity paid by the consumer was realised at a somewhat excessive rate. 7. The learned Tribunal had no difficulty in holding that this rebate was not a "reserve" for the purpose of deduction from gross profits and authorised in Section 6(d) of the Bonus Act read with item 6 of the Third Schedule. That item says that any sum which is required to be appropriated by the licensee in respect of the accounting year to a reserve under the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity Act shall also be deducted. As already pointed out, paragraph 11(1) of the Sixth Schedule does not describe this sum as a reserve, though another sum has been described as Tariffs and Dividends Control Reserve in the same Paragraph. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that this sum cannot be deducted from the gross profits under Sec. 6(d) of the Bonus Act. 8. But the Tribunal thought that the same sum was a reserve for the purpose of adding back to make up the gross profits. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that this sum cannot be deducted from the gross profits under Sec. 6(d) of the Bonus Act. 8. But the Tribunal thought that the same sum was a reserve for the purpose of adding back to make up the gross profits. Sec. 4(b) of the Bonus Act says that, where the employer is a company other than a banking company, gross profits shall be computed in accordance with the Second Schedule to that Act, and, under that Schedule, the various sums to be added to the net profits are described in item 2. Clause (e) of that item is : "Any other reserves". The crucial question for consideration is whether this rebate to the consumer will come within the category of "any other reserves". The tribunal thought that any amount which is retained in the hands of the employer for being paid on a future date can be described as a reserve for the purpose of the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act, though it will not be a reserve for the purpose of paragraph II of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, Mr. Lainarayan Sinha, who appeared for the company, strenuously contended that this view was wrong, and was also inconsistent with the view taken by the Tribunal while interpreting the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act. 9. The true nature of the rebate to the consumer provided in paragraph II of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity Act has been analysed and laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Poona Electric Supply Co., Ltd. Bombay V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City I. AIR 1966 SC 30 . Their Lordships held in paragraph II that this sum, set apart for rebate is a part of the excess amount paid to the company and reserved to be returned to the consumer, and that it did not form part of the assessees real profits. It is true that these observations were made in connection with the calculation of real profits for the purpose of the Indian Income-Tax Act; but their Lordships observation about the true nature of the rebate must be taken as a guide in deciding whether it can be called a reserve for the purpose of the Bonus Act. It is true that these observations were made in connection with the calculation of real profits for the purpose of the Indian Income-Tax Act; but their Lordships observation about the true nature of the rebate must be taken as a guide in deciding whether it can be called a reserve for the purpose of the Bonus Act. Once it is held that it is in the nature of the excess price paid by the consumer, which, under the statute, is required to be returned to him, it is difficult to understand how it can be a reserve. It is true that it is set apart for the purpose of being returned to the consumer according to the statute, but merely because it is set apart for that purpose and retained with the company for that purpose, it cannot be described as a reserve. 10. In this connection, the provisions of the Companies Act regarding the drawing up of the balance-sheet (Schedule VI) may be taken as a guide. Part III of that Schedule defines the expressions "provision" and "reserve", as follows: "7(1) For the purposes of Parts I and II of this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires, -- (a) the expression provision shall, subject to Sub-clause (2) of this clause, mean any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets, or retained by way of providing for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy; (b) the expression reserve shall not, subject as aforesaid, include any amount written off or retained by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability." It will be noticed that any known liability, of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy, is defined as a "provision", and may be so indicated in the balance-sheet of the company; but any known liability, which can be determined with substantial accuracy, cannot be either a "provision" or a "reserve", in view of the definition of the expression "reserve", quoted above. The legislature expressly stated that any amount retained by the company for providing for a known liability cannot under any circumstance be described as a "reserve". The legislature expressly stated that any amount retained by the company for providing for a known liability cannot under any circumstance be described as a "reserve". Here, the liability is not only clearly known but the amount can also be determined with substantial accuracy, bearing in mind the provisions of paragraph 11(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act. It cannot therefore, be described as a "reserve" for the purpose of drawing up the balance-sheet of the company, and the same interpretation should apply in construing the expression reserve", occurring in Clause (e) of paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act also. Where the employer is a company, the definitions of the expressions used in the Companies Act will apply in construing the same expressions occurring in the Bonus Act. I am. therefore, inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Lalnara van Sinha for the Company that, in essence, the rebate to the consumer is the excess price realised from the consumer by the company, which the company is hound by the statute to return to him. It cannot be described as a reserve for the purpose of: Clause (e) of item 2 of the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act. 11. I may, in this connection, refer to a recent Judgment of the Madras High Court between Workmen of Tinnevelly-Tuticorin Electric Supply Co., Ltd. V/s. Industrial Tribunal. Madras, 1967-1 Lab LJ 523 (Mad), where the learned Judge, reiving on the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, AIR 1966 SC 30 . observed: "Even before the gross profits of the employer are to be arrived at, these sums which, under the Law do not form part of the profits of the employer, have to be ignored. It is not a case of a prior charge in the sense in which the tribunal formula envisaged it. It is an amount which should be deleted even before the computation of the gross profits is made." It seems to me, therefore, that the Tribunal was in error in holding that this amount could be added back to the net profits in order to compute the gross profits. It is an amount which should be deleted even before the computation of the gross profits is made." It seems to me, therefore, that the Tribunal was in error in holding that this amount could be added back to the net profits in order to compute the gross profits. The observation of the Tribunal in the award that "any amount which had been retained in the hands of the management for being paid on a future date" is a reserve for the purpose of item 2(e) of the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act is too wide, and cannot be supported. It overlooks the definition of "reserve" given in part III of the sixth Schedule to the Companies Act. 12. Development Rebate -- In the Bonus Act, the expression "development rebate" occurs at two places : In Clause (d) of item 2 of the Second Schedule, it is mentioned as follows : "Development rebate Development allowance}reserve" Again, in Clause (b) of Sec. 6 of that Act, while enumerating the sums deductible from the gross profits as prior charges, it is provided as follows: "(b) any amount by way of development rebate or development allowance which the employer is entitled to deduct from his income under the Income-tax Act;" While development rebate permissibly under the Income-Tax Act (in its entirety) is referred to in Clause (b) of Sec. 6 of that Act, only that portion of the development rebate which can be called a reserve is referred to in Clause (d) of item 2 of the Second Schedule. In other words, unless the development rebate or a portion of it is set apart as a reserve in consequence of the statutory requirement or otherwise it cannot be added back to the net profit under the Second Schedule. This interpretation is supported by the language used in Clause (e) below Clause (d). There, the words used are "Any other reserves." The word "other" in this clause has ejusdem generis connection, and should be construed with the words used in the immediate preceding Clause (d). Hence, the entries in Clause (d) must be held to be limited to "reserves" only, and not merely to "development rebate." It will be instructive to notice in this connection Clause (c) of item 2 of the First Schedule which is applicable to a banking company. There also, the relevant entry is "Development Rebate Reserve". Hence, the entries in Clause (d) must be held to be limited to "reserves" only, and not merely to "development rebate." It will be instructive to notice in this connection Clause (c) of item 2 of the First Schedule which is applicable to a banking company. There also, the relevant entry is "Development Rebate Reserve". It is now necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Section 33(1) of that Act provides for development rebate in respect of plant and machinery owned by the assessee. The amount of Rs. 23,455/- has been calculated as provided in Sec.33, and the quantum is not under challenge here. But Sub-section (3) of Sec.34 of that Act says as follows (omitting immaterial portions): "3 (a) The deduction referred to in Sec.33 shall not be allowed unless an amount equal to 75 per cent of the development rebate to be actually allowed is debited to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account to be utilised by the assessee during a period of eight years next following for the purposes of the business of the undertaking, other than- (i) for distribution by way of dividends or profits; or (ii) for remittance outside India as profits or for the creation of any asset outside India: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the assessee is a company, being a licensee within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 , or where the ship has been acquired or the machinery or plant has been installed before the 1st day of January 1958. x x x x" On a construction of Sec.33(1) with Sec.34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, the following conclusion emerges: Where the assessee is not a licensee within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the development rebate under Sec.33(1) will not be allowable as a deduction unless an amount equal to 75 per cent of that rebate is debited to the profit and loss account and credited to a reserve account. If, however, the assessee company is a licensee within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the entire sum calculated as rebate under Sec.33 is deductible because, by virtue of the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Sec.34 of the Act, there is no statutory obligation on that licensee to set apart any part of the rebate to a reserve account. It is also not alleged that any portion of the said rebate was actually set apart as a reserve by the company, even though there may be no statutory obligation to set apart such a reserve. Hence, the company was justified in deducting from the gross profits the entire sum allowable as development rebate under Sec.33 of the Income-tax Act by virtue of Clause (b) of Sec. 6 of the Bonus Act, in view of the express language used in that clause, but it cannot be added back to the net profit to compute the gross profit under Sec. 4(b) of the Bonus Act read with Clause (d) of item 2 of the Second Schedule because it is not a reserve either in law or in fact. Once there is no statutory obligation to set apart any portion of the development rebate as a reserve under Sec.34(3) of the Income-tax Act and it is not alleged that any such reserve was actually constituted, it cannot be described as a reserve The Tribunal thought that, if it is deductible from the gross profit under Sec. 6(b) of the Bonus Act, it should also be added back to the net profit for the purpose of calculating the gross profit, and that any other view would be "unreasonable and unjust". The obvious answer to this argument is that It is only that portion of the development rebate which can be described as a reserve that can be added back to the net profit under item 2(d) of the Second Schedule, though the whole of the development rebate permissible under the Income-tax Act can be deducted from the gross profit under Sec. 6(b) of the Bonus Act. In view of the difference in language used in Clause (d) of item 2 of the Second Schedule and Clause (b) of Section 6 of the Bonus Act, the view taken by the Tribunal must be held to be erroneous. 13. In view of the difference in language used in Clause (d) of item 2 of the Second Schedule and Clause (b) of Section 6 of the Bonus Act, the view taken by the Tribunal must be held to be erroneous. 13. Development Reserve -- (There is the subject-matter of Civil Writ jurisdiction Case No. 137 of 1967). In the balance-sheet of the company, this sum has been deducted from the gross profit under Sec. 6(d) read with the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act, and also added back under Sec. 4(b) read with the Second Schedule to that Act. The union is in full agreement with the action of the company in adding this sum back to the net profit because it is not challenged that it will come within the category of "any other reserves" as provided in Clause (e) of item 2 of the Second Schedule; but, on the question of its deducibility, it was urged that it was not deductible because it would not come within the scope of item 6 of the Third Schedule. In considering this question, a careful scrutiny of Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act is necessary Those sub-paragraphs are as follows "(1) There shall be created a resent to be called the Development Reserve to which shall be appropriated in respect of each accounting year a sum equal to the amount of income-tax and super-tax calculated at rates applicable during the assessment year for which the accounting year of the licensee is the previous year, on the amount of development rebate to which the licensee is entitled for the accounting year under Clause (vi) (b) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Indian Income-Tax Act 1922. Provided that if in any accounting year, the clear profit (excluding the special appropriation to be made under item (va) of Clause (c) of Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph XVII) together with the accumulations, if any, in the Tariffs and Dividends Control Reserve less the sum calculated as aforesaid falls short of the reasonable return, the sum to be appropriated to the Development Reserve in respect of such accounting year shall be reduced by the amount of the short-fall. (2) Any sum to be appropriated towards the Development Reserve in respect of any accounting year under Sub-paragraph (1), may be appropriated in annual instalments spread, over a period not exceeding five years hum the commencement of that accounting year." The scheme of these two sub-paragraphs of paragraph V-A is clear. The statute requires the creation of another reserve, known as Development Reserve, by the licensee of an electric supply Company, to which shall be appropriated a sum equal to the amount of income-tax and super-tax on the amount of development rebate, to which the licensee is entitled under the provisions of the Indian Income-Tax Act. (Though sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph V-A refers to the provisions of the Income-Tax Act of 1922, it should now be construed to refer to Sec.33 of the Income-Tax Act of 1961, already quoted). While allowing the development rebate permissible under Sec.33 of the Income-Tax Act to be deducted for the purpose of assessment to income-tax, the Electricity (Supply) Act requires that the actual income-tax and super-tax calculated on that rebate should be appropriated to development reserve. The proviso to the sub-paragraph was required to meet a contingency which may arise where the clear profits of a licensee, together with the Dividends Control Reserve, after deducting the sum set apart for development reserve under Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph V-A fall short of the reasonable return of a licensee. In such a contingency, the statutory provisions permitted the sum to be actually appropriated to the development reserve to be reduced by the amount of the short-fall. Sub-paragraph (2) further provided that the sum to be actually appropriated towards the development reserve in respect of an accounting year may be appropriated in annual instalments spread over a period not exceeding five years from the commencement of that accounting year. 14. In the present case, the question in controversy is whether the sum of Rs. 35,682.00 can be legally appropriated by the licensee in respect of the accounting year, viz, 1964-65, for the purpose of item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act. Before this Court, an affidavit was filed by the company which gave full particulars as to how the said figure was arrived at: "Profit & Loss Account : Break-up of Development Reserve  Rs. 35,682/- Year Development Rebate Tax Rate percentage Proportionate Development Reserve 1964/65 23,45545% Rs. 10,558 1968/64 41,88745% Rs. Before this Court, an affidavit was filed by the company which gave full particulars as to how the said figure was arrived at: "Profit & Loss Account : Break-up of Development Reserve  Rs. 35,682/- Year Development Rebate Tax Rate percentage Proportionate Development Reserve 1964/65 23,45545% Rs. 10,558 1968/64 41,88745% Rs. 18,602 1962/68 3,84250% Rs. 1,671 1961/62 9,70750% Rs. 4,864 Total of Amount Appropriated Rs. 35,682 Mr. Ray for the workmen urged that the sum of Rs. 10,555 only, being the proportionate development reserve calculated on the development rebate for the year 1964-65, was permissible. According to him, the proportionate development reserve for 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 ought not to have been added to make up a total sum of Rs. 35,682. 15. On behalf of the company, however, Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha urged that the funds in the hands of the company did not permit of any sum being appropriated as development reserve in the years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 because, by virtue of the proviso to Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule, "reasonable return had to be provided for the company". Hence, all these sums were appropriated only in 1964-65. He urged that, by virtue of Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule, the company was entitled to appropriate, in an accounting year, the development reserve calculated for the preceding four years also which could not be appropriated during those years due to the shortfall envisaged in the proviso to Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph VA. 16. I am inclined to accept this view. Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph V-A of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act show clearly that, though the development reserve has to be calculated for each year in the manner indicated in Sub-paragraph (1), the actual appropriation may be spread over a period of five years in order to ensure that the reasonable return to the licensee is not impaired. The maximum period, to which actual appropriation can be so spread is, however, limited to five years. Here, that limit has not been exceeded. It was, however, urged that, by using the word "annual instalments" in Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule, the Legislature intended that some amount must be appropriated every year. The maximum period, to which actual appropriation can be so spread is, however, limited to five years. Here, that limit has not been exceeded. It was, however, urged that, by using the word "annual instalments" in Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule, the Legislature intended that some amount must be appropriated every year. Normally, this may be so: but, on a strict construction of sub-paragraph (2) along with the proviso to Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph VA, it follows that, with a view to secure reasonable return, no amount may be available for appropriation to the development reserve in some years. In such contingencies, there seems to be no legal bar if the instalment for some of the years are reduced to zero, and the entire sum is appropriated in a succeeding year, provided that the maximum period of five years is not exceeded. This has happened in the present case. 17. The actual language used by the Legislature in item 8 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act may now be carefully examined. In that item, the Legislature stated that any sum which is "required to be appropriated by the licensee in respect of the accounting year to a reserve under the Sixth Schedule to that Act shall also be deducted". The emphasis here is on the sum required to be appropriated" in respect of the accounting year and not the sum calculated in respect of the accounting year. Hence, the various sums calculated as development reserve for pre-ceding years also, if permitted by Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph VA of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act to be appropriated in the accounting year 1964-65, will come within the scope of item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act. The view taken by the Tribunal is right, though it has not fully discussed the relevant provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act with the language used in item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act. 18. For these reasons, I would issue the following directions: (i) In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 121 of 1967, that portion of the award of the Tribunal directing the adding back of the sum of Rs. 18,086 to the net profits for calculation of gross profits is quashed. 18. For these reasons, I would issue the following directions: (i) In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 121 of 1967, that portion of the award of the Tribunal directing the adding back of the sum of Rs. 18,086 to the net profits for calculation of gross profits is quashed. The remaining portion of the award, which disallowed the deduction of the said sum from the gross profits, is maintained. (ii) As regards the sum of Rs. 28,455, shown as development rebate, that portion of the award which directed that it should be added back to the net profits to calculate the gross profits under Clause 2 (d) of the Second Schedule to the Bonus Act is quashed. This writ is allowed to that extent. (iii) Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 137 of 1987 is dismissed. (iv) As the company has substantially succeeded, the union of workmen should pay consolidated cost of Rs. 200.00 to the company. B.D.Singh, J. 19 I agree.