P L D 1961 Supreme Court 39 (PLP)

Issue No. 1 :-The workers should get one-fourth of the total amount of wages payble to them for the period starting from the day of the lay-off till the date of reinstatement. Issue No. 2 :-The workers to get bonus for the year 1.956 equivalent to one month of their wages for the period ending 1956. Issue No. 3 :-Three out of four dismissed workers, namely, Ghulam Geelani, Shireen and Ghulam Habib should be reinstated to the Jerry-can Department and they should receive their wages at the rate mentioned in the Award for the period starting from the date of discharge till their reinstatement. Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, the learned advocate for Saifee Development Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Management), has accepted before us the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal with regard to issue No. (3). He has, however, challenged the Award with regard to issues Nos. (2) and (1) in that order. The learned Advocate has contended that though the Company did not make any profit in the year 1956, still the Tribunal allowed bonus to the workers for that year. This contention find support from the profit and loss account submitted by the Management, which shows that in the year 1956 the Management suffered a net loss of Rs. 1,29,475/7/4. It is really surprising that in spite of the above clear statement in the account the Tribunal found that the Company had made a profit of rupees five lacs and odd. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion as follows. From the sales amounting to Rs. 10,60,248/1/ and the stock in hand amounting to Rs. 8,07,568 i.e., from Rs. 18,67,816/1/- the Tribunal deducted the stock and purchases amounting to Rs. 13,59,117/4/9. This method of computing profit and loss is too absurd to need any comment. It will suffice to say that the Tribunal has overlooked a sum of Rs. 5,94,731/3/7 spent in payment of salaries, wages and other incidental expenses. Further the Tribunal's conservation that the Company had paid a dividend that year has no basis for it. The Tribunal forgot to notice that the dividend was shown, not on the debit side, but on the credit side, and represented income from the Company's investments. The learned Attorney-General drew our attention to the Director's report which shows an item of profit of Rs. 86,133/8/1 in the year 1956. This report clearly shows that the Management suffered an overall loss of Rs. 86,488/11/4 and that the profit to which the Attorney-General referred was really earned by the Saifee Development Corporation Sales Division, Associating Mozzam Industries Ltd. and not by the Management. In these circumstances, Mr. Fakhruddin is justified in attacking the above findings of the Tribunal its arbitrary and opposed to every recognised practice of accounting. It is clear that the Management did not make. Any profit in the year 1956 and as such the workers were not entitled to get any bonus that year. Next we take up issue No.

1. The case of the workers under this head was to the following effect. The Union called a strike on the question of bonus on the 13th June, 1957. By a settlement arrived at on the 14th June, 1957, the parties agreed that the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Labour, will act as an Arbitrator and his decision on the question of bonus will be final that the Union will ask the workers to resume duty from the 15th June 1957 and on their failure to resume duty from 17th June 1957 their services will be terminated. In pursuance of the above agreement, the workers resumed duty on the 17th June, 1957, but on the next day i.e., 18th June 1957, 98 workers were locked out. The Union is, therefore, asking for reinstatement of the said workers and for compensation for the period from the date of lay-off to the date of reinstatement. The Management's case was that there was a major break down in the machinery on the 7th June, 1957. They, however, entered into an agreement with the Union on the 14th June 1957, because they were under the impression that the machinery could be repaired without much delay. On the 17th June 1957 they were informed by the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Company Limited that the repair would take considerable time because certain necessary components had to be made by another company for effecting the major repairs. On receipt of this information the Management was compelled to lay-off 85 workers. On the 27th June, 1957, they offered to half of the unskilled workers an alternate employment in their building construction work and to the skilled workers 25 % of their normal wages, but this offer was rejected by the Union. On the 10th September, 1957, the repaired machinery actually started working and most of the workers resumed duty. On the 27th September, 1957, the Management was forced to discharge 45 workers due to shortage of raw materials. Out of them 30 workers were later employed in the construction department. After improvement in the position of the raw materials by the 1st May, 1958, all of them were re-employed in their parent department. Josph Holler; Chief Engineer of the Company, has fully explained the major break down in the machinery. From his evidence it is clear that because of the unavoidable delay in the repair of the machinery the Management had to lay-off a number of workers. The Union has led no evidence to show that the stoppage of work was not due to a break down in the machinery. Hence the finding of the Tribunal "that the lay-off was not justified" which is based on no evidence cannot be upheld. We understand that most of the laid-off workers have been reinstated. Hence the only question for consideration is whether they are entitled to any relief for the period of lay-off. The learned advocate for the Management has pointed out that in accordance with the provisions of rule 42 of tile Standing Orders of the Company the period of unemployment is to be treated as compulsory leave with pay or without pay. He has submitted that as the affected workers had been given earned leave during the period of lay-off, they were not entitled to claim any further relief. We do not find much force in this contention of the learned advocate. From the materials on record it is clear that the Management did not know when the work could be resumed. In other words, the workers had been laid-off for an indefinite period. Thus rules 43 of the Standing Orders was applicable in this case. It reads as under: "Rule 43.-When workmen will have to be laid-off for an indefinitely long period, their services will be terminated after giving due notice or pay in lieu of notice." The Management, therefore, should have terminated their services after giving due notice, or pay in lieu of notice. This, they did not do. In these circumstances, we are of opinion, that the permanent workers are entitled to some relief. We accordingly allow this appeal and direct that the Award of the Tribunal should be varied in such wise that the relief allowed to the workers should be limited as under to avoid double payment. The permanent workers who resumed work and who did not receive salary for an aggregate period of four months between the 7th June 1957, and the 31st December, 1957 should be granted a month's salary less any amount received by them on account of notice of discharge. The parties will bear their own costs of this appeal. K. H. A. ????????? Appeal partly accepted.