( 1 ) IN this writ petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the Workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools I and II, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the HMT I and II) lepresented by the HMT Employees association have called in question the correctness of the award dt. 16-4-69 passed by the National Tribunal, Calcutta, in Ref. No. NIT 6 of 1967 and published in the Gazette of India dt May 10, 1969, in so far it affects the interest of the workmen of HMT I and II adversely. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award to the extent it is prejudicial to their interests. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly these: HMT Ltd. was floated as a government Company by the Central Govt. in the year 1953 Its initial share capital was in the order of Rs 3. 9 crores and the whole of it was subscribed by the Government of India It was later on raised to Rs. 12 crores The first factory of the Company was started at Bangalore. The said factory was engaged in the manufacture of heavv machine tools such as lathes, radial drills grinding machines, turrets, milling machines, special purpose machines, etc and soon commenced to make profits. A second factory was also started at Bangalore by the said Company in or about the year 196ft. These two factones came to be railed as HMT I and ii, Bangalore. Similarly, a third factory known as HMT III was started by the Company in or about the year 1962 at Pinjere in Punjab The Company started a watch factory at Bangalore in 1961; HMT IV at Kalamserry in kerala in 1963 and HMT V at Hyderabad in 1964 disputes having arisen between the workmen in HMT I and II, Bangalore, and HMT IV Kalamserry and the management, the Central Govt. referred under Sub-sees (1a) and (5) of S 10 of the Industrial Disputes act to the National Tribunal at Calcutta the following points of dispute for adjudication by its order dt October 16, 1967 : (i) Whether the demand of the workmen in the HMT I and II at Bangalore for payment of bonus at the rate of 20 per cent of the^r salary for the, year 1966-67 is justified? If not, to what quantum of bonus are they entitled? (ii)Whether the wqrkmen of HMT at Kalamaserry, Pinjore and hyderabad are entitled to any bonus and if so, what should be the quantum of such bonus? (iii) Whether the, demand of the workmen of HMT I and II at Bangalore, and of the HMT IV at Kalamserry that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of a consolidated Profit and Loss Account for all the units and all activities and not on the ba,sis of Profit and Loss Accounts of the; separate units and separate activities is justified notices having been issued by the, National Tribtinal to all the concerned parties, before the Nationaj Tribunal the management and workmen of HMT I, II, III and IV and of HMT Watch Factory were all represented either by their Counsel or by Trade Union leaders as the case may be. By its a,ward dt. April 16, 1969 the National Tribunal held: " (1) The demand of the workmen in the HMT I and II, Bangalore for for payment of bonus at the rate of 20 per cent of their salary for the year 1966-67 is not justified and they are entitled only to four per cent, that is to say the minimum bonus for the year; (2) The workmen of the HMT at Kalamaserry and Pinjore are entitled to the same rate of bonus as is paid to workmen of the, Watch Factory and hmt I and II workmen during the year 1963-64 The factory at Hyderabad not having been started by March 31, 1964, becomes disentitled to the provision of the Bonus Act. Since during the Bonus Act period by virtue of the maintenance of separate accounts no branch or under-taking becomes entitled to the prosperity of the Company the Hyderabad branch is not entitled to any bonus at all under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus act; and (3) The demand of the workmen of the HMT I and II at Bangalore and of the HMT IV at Kaiamaserry that bonus should be calculated on the basis of consolidated Profit and Loss Accounts of the separate units and separate activities is justified for the year 1963-64 only and not for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. " ( 3 ) THE award was published under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Centra] Govt. " ( 3 ) THE award was published under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Centra] Govt. in the Gazette of India dt. May 10, 1969. Aggrieved by the above award the petitioners herein filed the above, writ petition on 10-9-1969 before this Court, but the workmen of HMT IV, kaiamaserry filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India before tht Supreme Court on ,11-8-1969. After the special Leave was granted by the Supreme Court, tho appeal was registered as CA. 389 (1) of 1970 ( 4 ) THE appeal filetf by the workmen ot HMT IV before the Supreme court was disposed of on April 3, 1973 and the decision is reported at 1973 (II) LLJ 100 , The questions which were decided by the Supreme court related exclusively to HM1 TV except one which was covered by point of dispute No. 3, raised before the National Tribunal. The Supreme court affirmed the finding of the National Tribunal that bonus should be calculated on the basis of the Profit and Loss Account statement prepared separately in respect of each unit, for the period subsequent to the coming into force of the Payment of Bonus Act (hereinafter referred to as the act. It is not necessary to refer 10 the other findings of the Supreme court for the purpose of this case. ( 5 ) IN view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioners confined their case in this petition only to one question covered by dispute No. 1 before the National Tribunal relating to the quantum of bonus pavable to the workmen of HMT I and II for the year 1966-67 at the outset it is necessary to dispose of a, preliminary objection raised by Sri P. P. Bopanna, learned Counsel for the management, regarding the maintainability of this petition. He argued that since the Supreme court had dismissed the appeal filed by the workmen of HMT IV, kalamaserry the award had become engaged in the decision of the Supreme court and hence it was not open to this Court to proceed with tha hearing of this petition. He relied upon the decision of the Kerala High court in HMT Workers' Congress Kalamaseny (OP. No. 3181 of 1969 decided on 2-11-1972) in support of his contention. He relied upon the decision of the Kerala High court in HMT Workers' Congress Kalamaseny (OP. No. 3181 of 1969 decided on 2-11-1972) in support of his contention. On going thrqugh the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the Kerala, H. C. , I am of opinion that the contention of Sri Bopanna is not well founded. ' The National Tribunal had treated each unit of HMT as a separate entity for purpoises of computation of bonus during the years subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. The petitioners herein were not appellants before the Supreme court. The question relating to the correctness of the computation of bonus payable to the workmen of HMT I and II for the year 1966-67 made by the. National Tribunal was not btfore the Supreme Court. Hence the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be pleaded as a bar to the enquiry into the correctness of bonus payable to the petitioners herein for the year 1966-67. The decision of the Kerala High Court referred to above is distinguishable from this case because the petition before the Keraia High Court was one which had been filed on behalf of the workmen of HMT IV, Kalamaserry against the award against which they had also filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, the Kerala High Court held that it was inexpedient and unnecessary to hear the petition before it. Hence, I overrule the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the management. ( 6 ) SRI M. C. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised three contentions against the computation of bonus payable to the petitioners for the year 1966-67 made by the National Tribunal They are: (1) that the National Tribunal was wrong in adding Rs 64,79663 by way of depreciation at. per books while determining the gross profits instead of Rs. 81,16. 982 which was shown as depreciation in the Profit and loss Account produced by the management; (2) that the National Tribunal erred in not noticing that there was a sum of Rs. 17,86,731 available as the amount of set-on for the year 1966- 67; and (3) that the National Tribunal erred in allowing a deduction of 6% on the sum of Rs. 7,65,64,630 which was shown against Head Office current account as on 1-4-1966. 17,86,731 available as the amount of set-on for the year 1966- 67; and (3) that the National Tribunal erred in allowing a deduction of 6% on the sum of Rs. 7,65,64,630 which was shown against Head Office current account as on 1-4-1966. In the case of the petitioners, the amount of 'allocable surplus' on the basis of which bonus has to be paid is sixty percent of the available surplus (vide S 2 (4) of the Act ). The available surplus in respect of the accounting year in question has to be determined in accordance with S. 5 (as it stood in the, year 1966-67)- which defined the said expression as the gross profit fqr that year after deducting therefrom the sums referred to in sec. 6 of the Act. The gross profits derived by an employer during any accounting year should be calculated in the manner specified in the second schedule of the Act in the, instant case (see S 4 of the Act ). One of the items which has to be added to the net profit as per Profit and Loss Account to arrive at the gross profit is provision for depreciation made in the Profit and Loss Acccount. Under S. 6 of the, Act any amount by way of depreciation admissible in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deducted as a prior charge; before determining the available surplus. The amount of depreciation added under the Second Schedule is the provision for depreciation made as per 8. 205 (2) of the Companies Act and the amount deductible, by way off depreciation under S. 6 of the. Act is the amqunt pf depreciation admissible under S. 32 (1) of the Income Tax Act or in accordance with the, provisions of the Agricultural Income Tax Law as the case may be,. This legal poisition has been explained by the Supreme, Court in Metal Box Co. v, Their workmen, AIR. 1969 SC. 612,617 as follows : under S. 205 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, no, dividend can be declared or paid by a Company for any financial year except put of profits arrived at after providing for depreciation in accordance with sub-sec. (2 ). Sub-sec. v, Their workmen, AIR. 1969 SC. 612,617 as follows : under S. 205 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, no, dividend can be declared or paid by a Company for any financial year except put of profits arrived at after providing for depreciation in accordance with sub-sec. (2 ). Sub-sec. (2) prqvides different methods of calculating preaciation one of which is to calculate it by dividing 95 per cent of the original cost of each of the depreciable asset by a, specified period in respect of each such asset. The depreciation deducted in the expenditure column in the P and L Account, therefore, was the depreciation worked out under 3. 205 (2) of the Companies Act. Under S. 2 (18 ). of the Bonus Act, gross profits mean gross profits calculated under S. 4. In the case of Companies other than a banking Company, gross prqfits under S. 4 are to be computed in the manner laid down in the 2nd Sch. . That Schedule requires adding back to the net profit shpwn in the p and L Account the amount of depreciation deducted in that account while computing gross profits, obviously, the depreciation so to be added back is the one worked out by the Company u/s. 205 (2) of the Companies act. S. 6 of the Bonus Act provides that having arrived at the gross" profits s. 4 read with II Sch. , the Company is entitled to deduct therefrom depreciation admissible u s. 32 (1) of the Income-tax Act, that is, such percentage on the written down value as may, in the case of each of the classes" of assets be prescribed. " ( 7 ) UNDER S. 6 (d) read with the IIIrd Sch. in the case of a Company other than a Banking Company, a sum equivalent to 8. 5 per cent of its paid up equity share capital as at the commencement of the accqunting year and a sum equivalent tp six per cent of its reserves shown in its balance sheet as at the commencement of the accounting year including any prqfits carried forward from the previous accqunting year are deductible' from the gross profits to arrive at the available surplus. Under S. 15 of the Act, where fqr any accounting year the allocable surplus exceeds the amqunt of maximum bonus payable to the employees in the establishment under S. 11, then the excess shall, subject to a, limit of twenty per cent of the total salary or wages of the employees employed in the establishment in that accounting year be carried forward for being set-on in the succeeding accqunting year and sp on uptq and inclusive of the fourth accounting year to be utilised for the payment of bonus in 'the manner illustrated in the Fourth Schedule pf the Act. The foregoing is briefly the summary of the relevant provisions of the act which have to be considered in this case. ( 8 ) BEFORE the National Tribunal the, management fileld a, statement of computation of allocable surplus under the Act in respect of HMT I and II for the year 1966-67, as follows : that there is an apparent error in the computation statement in so far as the figure of Rs. 64,79,663 is concerned cannot be disputed m view of the entry in the, P and L Account. The, burden of proving the amount of depreciation claimable, by the management under S. 32 (1) of the, Income Tax act is on the management as observed by the Supreme Court in the Metal box Co. case (1 ). But before, the, National Tribunal it claimed only rs. 61,31,232 and not Rs. 77,68,551 as it is now sought to be, made out in the courses of arguments here. It is no doubt true, that in the Schedule attached to the P and L Account how the figure of Rs. 81,16,982 was arrived at is shown. But none of the parties to the, case, before, the Natioinal. Tribunal spoke to the said figure. Nor was any attempt made to show to the National ttibunal that the depreciation deductible under S. 32 (1) of the, Income Tax act was Rs. 77,68,551 and not Rs. 61,31,232. The Counsel for the petitioners who had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the management also did not make any attempt to elicit from them the reason for the difference now pointed out before this Court. 77,68,551 and not Rs. 61,31,232. The Counsel for the petitioners who had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the management also did not make any attempt to elicit from them the reason for the difference now pointed out before this Court. Since both the parties have contributed to the error committed by the National Tribunal, having regard to the restricted scope of enquiry under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, I feel that ends of justice would be met if I set aside the award and remand the case to the National Tribunal to determine afresh the actual amount that should be added back towards depreciation for the purpose of computing the gross profits, the actual amount deductible from the gross profits towards depreciation under S. 32 (1) of the, Income, Tax act as per Sec. 6 of the Act and the amounts of available, surplus and allocable surplus. The second question relates to the availability of a, sum of Rs. 17,86,731 for being set-on during the year 1966-67. ( 9 ) THIS claim of the petitioners is untenable and therefore rejected. The third point urged by Sri Narasimhan really presents some, difficulty and it involves the interpretation of the, provisions of the, Act in the context of the, facts of this case. It relates to the deduction of 6 per cent of the sum of Rs. 7,65,64,630 i. e. Rs. 45,93,900 (in round sum) under S. 6 (d) read with the Third schedule off the Act. In the Balance Sheet prepared for the year 1966-67 in respect of HMT i and II a sum of Rs. 7,65,64,630 is shown on the, side of Liabilities; under the head Head-Office Current Account, The management claimed a, deduction of 8 5 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 65,07,994 under S. 6 (d) read with item 1 (ii) of the IIIrd Sch. of the Act before the National Tribunal. The contention of the workmen was that no amount was deductible in respect of the said sum as it did not represent either equity share capital or any other sum in respect of which deduction could be claimed under the, IIIrd schedule, of the Act. The National Tribunal disposed of the above, question in para, 24 of the award as follows : "24. I am however doubtful as to whether return on capital at th* rate of 8. The National Tribunal disposed of the above, question in para, 24 of the award as follows : "24. I am however doubtful as to whether return on capital at th* rate of 8. 5 per cent amounting to Rs. 65,07,994 is a permissible deduction. Item I (ii) of the IIIrd Sch. of the Payment of Bonus Act no doubt permits 8. 5 per cent return on the paid up equity share capital and Item (iii) permits 6 per cent return on reserves shown in the Balance Sheet. There is no provision, nowever, for return on loan capital as made to the units at the rate of 8. 5 per cent. Assuming for the sake of argument that capital is invested in the expectation of some return and not to He. idle, there must be a difference ma,de between return on sharp capital and return on money loaned to a branch as the capital for the branch. Such amount may at best earn 6 per cent as is done by reserve. Now, it appears from Statement-I and Ext. B that the capital invested, by way of loan, to HMT I and II units as on April 1, 1966, was Rs 7,65,64,630. In round sum interest at the rate of six per cent on such amount would be a,bout Rs. 45,93,,900. If I reduce the figure Rs. 63,07 994 claimed as return on capital to Rs. 45,93,900 even then the total of the amount to be deducted comes upto Rs. 1,74,64,163 leaving no available surplus. Titus, I hold that for the year 1966-67 the workmen of the HMT I and II were not entitled to claim bonus at the rate of 20 per cent on the basis of their separate P and L Account Minimum bonus at the rate of 4 per cent has been paid or differed to be paid to them for the year 1966-67 and to that amount only they are entitled. " ( 10 ) FROM the Print Bopk piqpared in CA. 389 (L) of 1970 before the Supreme court (a copy of which is produced oy the management) it is seen that fhe management has claimed return on capital at 8. " ( 10 ) FROM the Print Bopk piqpared in CA. 389 (L) of 1970 before the Supreme court (a copy of which is produced oy the management) it is seen that fhe management has claimed return on capital at 8. 5 per cent in respect of sums Advanced, to, each o its units in 1966-67 as follows : the to jial of the sums which are shqwn to, have been advanced to the "various units by the management far exceed Rs. 12 crores which is the share capital of the Company. In his evidence Sri M. Nageswara Rao, controller of Finance, HMT (MW. I) has stated as follows : "the units ha,va no separate share capital and no separate reserves. Although the units have no share capital or reserve we claim some return on the capital on the basis of capital employed in the business of the suit (shown Ex. G page 97 entry against interest on Head Office capital ). Interest has been charged at the rale ot 8 per cent per annum. As far as the unit is concerned, the entry is not notional but actual. The P and L. Account of the Company will not reflect this interest on Head Office Current Account charged on Kalamaserry factory. As against this entry, there will be a Journal entry in the head Office Account. " ( 11 ) M. W. 2 Jacob Pulimooid states in his evidence that the said amounts a,re shown as ' Capital Investment' but it is the same thing as current account loan. 8 per cent was claimed instead of 8 per cent because that was required under the Payment of Bonus Act. Earlier he has staged that the rate of interest actually charged was 8 per cent although the method of keeping accounts has become very technical at the hands of professional men, it should also be capable of being understood by laymen who are affected to a large extent by the result of accounting. If the entire sum so advanced to each unit is loan from the Head office, the interest paid on that sum could have been claimod as interest paid on moneys borrowed for the business in which event the figure ot net profit in the P and I, Account itself would get reduced. If the entire sum so advanced to each unit is loan from the Head office, the interest paid on that sum could have been claimod as interest paid on moneys borrowed for the business in which event the figure ot net profit in the P and I, Account itself would get reduced. Then theie would probably be no need to deduct under S. 6 (d) read with the III Sch of the act. But the amount in question is not shown as loan in the Balance Sheet it cannot also, be treated as loan for the reason to be stated hereafter. Even though for other purposes a consolidated Balance Sheet and P and L accqunt of all units would be, necessary, for the purpose of the, Act it would be necessary to adopt fictitious figures as if each branch or unit is an independent establishment in which the proprietor has invested its money to determine the bonus payable under the Act to the workmen concerned when the case falls under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act. Dealing with a similar question the Supreme Court has observed in Delhi Cloth and general Mills v. Workmen, AIR. 1972 SC. 299, as follows : "the Act is a, complete Coda and the provisions thereof must have effect of their own force. So far as the Mills before us are concerned the gross profits must be computed in terms of the Second Schedule to the, Act and the available surplus mentioned in S. 5 in terms of Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act. Where a branch or undertaking has to be taken as an establishment undei the proviso to S. 3 for the purp. ose, of the Act, the gross profits, prior charges, the available surplus and the allocable surplus have all to be found out by applying that fiction to the branch or establishment; when the fiction is to have effect with regard to all other matters, it is not possible to hold that for the purpose of computation of direct tax it has to be given a go-by and the actual realities of the, situation only in respect of the amount of tax payable under the Income Tax Act for all the establishments which have to suffer taxation together allowed to, displace the fictional and notional liability. " ( 12 ) IN the instant case the money advanced tp each of the units by the Head office may consist of equity share capital, reserves and loans borrowed by the He,ad Office from Government and other squrces. In any event the return on that amount would not be less than 6 per cent which has been allowed by the National Tribunal, for if it is equity share capital the return would be 8. 5 per cent, if it is from out of the reserve it would be 6 per cent, and if it is money invested in the branch which is treated as an independent establishment tor purposes of the Act it would bring the case under item 5 of the IIIrd Sch. in which event a return of 8. 5 per cent is permissible on the amount invested at the commencement of the accounting year. The case of the management that the sum should be treated as loan by the Head Office sought to be made qut in the evidence is, not supported by the pleading and the computation statement filed by the management. There cannot be a loan in the absence of relationship of debtor and creditor as observed by the Supreme Court in Workmen of William Jacks and co, Ltd. v. Management of William Jacks and Co, (1971) 1 LLJ. 583. Hence, the case of loan cannot be accepted. Deduction cannot a,lso be claimed as return on equity share capital in the facts and circumstances of this case as the equity share capital being Rs. 12 crqres, it cannot be stated clearly in which branch it has been absorbed. That is not also the specific case put forward- further, there may be cases of branches which are treated as independent establishments under the Act which may not have equity share capital ( 13 ) THE IIIrd Sch. of the Act refers to six categories of employers and prescribes the further sums that can be deducted under S. 6 (d) of the Act by each category of employers. of the Act refers to six categories of employers and prescribes the further sums that can be deducted under S. 6 (d) of the Act by each category of employers. The six categories of employers are (1) a company, other than a banking company; (2) a banking company; (3) a corporation; (4) a co-operative society (5) any other employer not failing under any of the aforesaid categories; and (6) any employer falling under categories 1 to 5 and being a licensee within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. A branch or a department or an undertaking of an establishment failing under categories 1 to 4 which satisfies the conditions of the prqviso to, S. 3 of the Act can be treated as an establishment or employer falling under the residuary category i. e. category No. 5 as it would not fall under any other category. If it is not so. treated then no deduction can be claimable in respect of the sums invested in it oy the principal establishment which owns it either by way of return on equity share capital or reserve. It is only by treating an establishment which is deemed to be an establishment under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act as an employer facing under Item No. 5 of the IIIrd Sch, it would be possible to allow a deduction of 8. 5 percent by way of return on the sums invested in it at the commencement of the, accounting year. If such a return is not allowed to be deducted then in the matter of determination of bonus there will be discrimination between" the workmen of employers failing under categories 1 to, 4 of the IIIrd Sh. and the workmen of an establishment falling under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act. Secondly, the non-exclusion of a reasonable return on the capital invested in an establishment from the available surplus would not be consistent with the ordinary notions of computation of bonus payable to workmen- By construing Item 5 of the iiird Sch. as including establishments falling under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act, the Court will not also be making any departure from the established principles of interpretation of statutes. as including establishments falling under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act, the Court will not also be making any departure from the established principles of interpretation of statutes. ( 14 ) HENCE the only reasonable way of deciding the case is to hold that the Company M/s Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. is the proprietor of HMT i and II in which it had invested Rs. 7,65,64,630 at the commencement of the accounting year and hence a deduction of 8. 5 per cent was claimable under Item 5 of the IIIrd Sch. of the Act. This view receives support from the observation of the Supreme Court in Central Weaving and Mfg, Co. v. Mill Mozdoor Sabha, CA. 1240/68 dt-12-3-69 - 1968-70 SC. Lab. Judgts. p. 729, in which it was concerned with a, case in which the factory which was being run by the management was a. prop prietary concern owned by a company called Macks Hard (P) Ltd. The supreme, Court observed that as regards return on capital the management "under S. 6 (d) read with Sch. III would be, entitled to, deduct from the gross profits a return at 8. 5% either on the paid up equity share capital as at the commencement of the accounting year if it were to be treated as a Company, or a like return on the capital invested by its proprietors as evidenced from its books of accounts at the commencement of the year" (underlining (italics) by me ). Hence, even though the 'management was entitled to claim a return at 8. 5 per cent on the sum invested, the National tribunal has allowed only 6 per cent. In the circumstances, no interference with this part of the award by which the petitioners cannot feel aggrieved is called for. 1 therefore confirm the same. I do not also permit the management at this distance of time to raise this question in this case before the National Tribunal when the matter is remanded to it to reconsider the first question and to make a racomputation of the allocable surplus for the year 1966-67. No other contention is urged. ( 15 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds in part only. No other contention is urged. ( 15 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds in part only. The, award Off the national Tribunal is set aside in so far as HMT I and II are concerned and the case is remanded to, the National Tribunal- (a) to, determine the amount that should be added back by way erf depreciation under Item 2 (b) of the Second Schedule of the Act; (b) to determine the amount that should be allowed to be deducted under S. 6 (a) of the Act: and (c) to, decide how much bonus is payable to the workmen on the basis of the findings on (a) and (b) referred to above without interfering with the other questions already decided by the National Tribunal. If either of the rvarties wishes to adduce anv evidence on the questions which are to be decided pursuant to this order, the National Tribunal shall afford them reasonable opportunity to do so before deciding the said questions. The petition is accordingly allowed in part There shall however be no order as to costs. ( 16 ) IN view of the long delay that has already taken place in the determination of the bonus payable in respect of the year 1966-67, it is hoped that the National Tribunal will dispose of the case within a period of six months from today. --- *** --- .