1978 PLP 406 (PLC)

Raja Shams‑uz‑Zaman for Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Respondent No. 2 Date of hearing: 18th September 1977. This is an appeal against the award of the Labour Court.

2. The appellant‑Management is engaged in the manufacture of plastic goods. There arc about (.0c) workers in the factory and they had formed a Union which was the 'Collective Bargaining Agent'. The charter of demand dated, 2‑4‑76 containing 18 demands was served upon the Management. Since no notice of the charter of demands was taken, a strike notice dated 19‑4‑76 was served. Conciliation proceedings were resumed but failed. Consequently, the Union approached the Labour Court for the enforcement of their demands.

3. Evidence was tendered by both the ,parties. On the assessment of the evidence, some of the demands were accepted and some were rejected. Against the acceptance of the demands the present appeal was filed by the Management.

4. At the time of arguments, Mr. Masood Mirza, Representative of the appellant confined himself to the Demand Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 14 and

15. I have considered the demands in the light of arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and my findings are as under:

5. The Demand No. I relates to the increase in the salary by Re. 50 and payment of Re. 5 per month due on account of the past arrears as per previous settlement. This was opposed by the Management. The Labour Court, however, allowed an increase of Rs. 30 per month in pay as well as accepted the demand for the past arrears of Re. 5 per month on the ground that the cost of living had increased. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and I find no justification for the increase in the wages. It is an admitted position that the Government has been awarding the relief by way of Cost of Living Allowance on account of the increase in the prices of the commodities. So the same reason provides no justification for increase in wages. It was, however, urged on behalf of the Union that the factory was established 20 years back and since then there has not been increase in the wages. This is a misstatement of facts as the very impugned order shows that by last settlement the wages has increased by Re. 20 per month as well as Re. 5 more subject to certain conditions. When this was pointed out to the learned Representative he said that this was an increment and not an increase in the wages. This contention was based on the use of the word, "increment" in the previous settlement. This contention is misconceived as the increase was shown to be monthly and there could not be monthly increase in the increment, but the increment is always yearly. So the use of word "increment" was through some misunderstanding or error and it was never intended to be an increment but it was an increase in the wages. The last settlement had taken place on 27‑1‑1974. Since then there has been, increase in the amount of allowance by the Government as a relief for the increase in the cost of living. Thus the purpose for which the relief was demanded was already served. So there was no justification for further increase in wages. So far the amount of Re. 5 is concerned, it was rightly allowed as according to the evidence on record it was not paid. The learned Representative for the Management pointed out that the amount was paid to some of the workers. But this assertion goes unsupported and, therefore, the mere contention cannot be taken into consideration. So the Management must pay Re. 5 per month as already agreed, to all the workers as ordered by the Labour Court.

6. So far the Demand No. 2 is concerned it relates to the annual increase of Rs. 10 which was granted by the Labour Court. Mr. Masood Mirza, Representative for the appellant, did not press his objection against this award. So the award given by the Labour Court with regard to this annual increment is maintained.

7. Demand No. 3 relates to the bonus, in addition to the statutory bonus granted under Standing Order 10(c). The Labour Court had allowed the bonus at the rate of 121%. I must say that this award cannot be maintained for the simple reason that the bonus depends upon the profit. So it cannot be anticipated that there will be any profit in future. The Union shall be at liberty to raise the demand afresh on the expiry of the period. It was, however, urged on behalf of the Union that the bonus was claimed for the past period. But this is not supported by the demand, which was made. As I have read the demand, it means that the claim was pressed for the future and not for the past period. The Labour Court had awarded one month's wages as bonus for the year 1976, but it was not shown that B any profit was made in that year. Even if there was any profit, how much it was made. So the finding of the Labour Court lacks reasons and cannot be supported.

8. Taking up Demand No. 6, it consists of three parts. The learned Representative confined his objection to the grant of Re. 25 p m. as rent allowed by the Labour Court. It has not been disputed that the rents are increasing and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the grant of rent c allowance to the workers. It wag, however, urged that the workers were living in the huts and, therefore, the question of rent did not prise, but there is no evidence to prove this fact. It may be that the huts are belonging to some other persons and the workers are paying rent to them.

9. Taking up Demand No. 13, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press his objection. So the award of the Labour Court with regard to this demand is maintained.

10. Then comes Demand No. 14, which was dropped by the learned Representative for the Union and, therefore, this demand is rejected.

11. The last Demand is No. 15, which pertains to the provision for a room to the Union, so that the workers may be able to lodge their grievances and record may be readily available. I find no justification for providing o a room to the Union within the premises of the factory. In my view this is an unreasonable demand and cannot be accepted. In case the demand is accepted, it is likely to create law and order situation in the factory. So the demand is rejected. 12, In the light of the above the appeal stands disposed of. Order accordingly.