1994 PLP 62 (PLC)
C. ITOH & CQMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus M/s. C. ITOH & COMPANY LIMITED
| Citation | 1994 PLP 62 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | C. ITOH & CQMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus M/s. C. ITOH & COMPANY LIMITED |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 62 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 62 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 62 (PLC) (C. ITOH & CQMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus M/s. C. ITOH & COMPANY LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant.
- Mehmood Abdul Ghani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.2(xiv), 26 & 32(1‑A)‑‑‑Raising industrial dispute ‑‑‑Industry‑‑ Determination of‑‑‑Employees' Union in establishment gave notice to employers accompanied by charter of demands‑‑‑Conciliation proceedings before Conciliator having failed, application for adjudication of dispute was presented by employees' Union before Court‑‑‑Employers contended that they being foreigners had office in Pakistan which was only a liaison office and as they were not undertaking any industrial or, commercial activity, their company could not be treated as an industry and application against them was not maintainable‑‑‑Employer company did documentation for and on behalf of its Head Office and thereafter customer and Head Office entered into negotiations‑‑‑Local office of employer company used to send reports to its tread Office abroad in respect of contracts and trade enquiries were also received by local office‑‑‑Employers had themselves filed a petition against employees' union under S.32(1‑A)‑‑‑All such things had shown that company was engaged in business activity which was of a very sophisticated nature being an adjunct of its parent company‑‑‑Court rightly found employers an industry and petition was maintainable. Rawalpindi Club Rawalpindi v. Registrar of Trade Unions and 2 others 1989 PLC 760; K.G. Old, Principal, Christian Technical Training centre. Gujranwala v: Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court and 6 others PLD 1976 Lah. 1097 and A.F. Ferguson v. Sindh Labour Court and others PLD 1985 SC 425 ref, (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Annual bonus‑‑‑Demand of‑‑‑Employees' Union claimed 5 gross annual bonuses from employer company on basis of what they described as global earnings‑‑‑No profits occurred to employer locally‑‑‑Concept of bonus was that same was to be paid from profits which an employer had made‑‑‑Employees' Union contended that employer company was selling products throughout the world to extent of considerable amount, but had not shown profits earned from those sales‑‑‑Global profits could not be basis of payment of bonus, if different units of company were so separated and unconnected that trade activity and contribution of labour made in profits thereof had no necessary connection with trade and profits of other units‑‑‑Demand of 5 bonuses, in circumstance, was not only high, but also misconceived. Lipton India v. Their Employees 1989 LLJ 421 ref.
Judgment & Decree
= after 8 p.m. (on holiday) Rs.500 Rs.600 Rs.800 Rs.400 Rs.500 Rs.600 Rs.200 Rs.200 Rs.200 One day trip over 150 K.M. one way (on holiday) Rs.500 Rs.800 Rs.400 Rs.600 Rs.200 Rs.200 One day trip over 50, K.M. one way and over 10 hours (on holiday) Rs.500 Rs.800 Rs.400 Rs.600 Rs.200 Rs.200 Balochistan trip during Lunch hours (13.00 ‑15.00) Rs.100 (for Karachi Office only)
1. Only one rate of above is applicable for one day.
2. Only Drivers and Peons will be paid overtime for actual working hours of overtime during official trip along-with daily allowance. and the same appear to be more favourable as compared to the other comparable concerns and therefore there is no room for any further increase. DEMAND NO. 7 (LUNCH AND DINNER ALLOWANCE) It appears that Rs.50 is being paid to the senior staff who remain on duty on working days and the Labour Court had already said that the same amount be paid to other staff irrespective of their cadre. That is being fair. DEMAND NO. 8(AGE OF RETIREMENT) Different concerns have different ages and it could not be said, as borne out from the record that the respondents are out of step with the other concerns. The demand was rejected by the Labour Court and there is no occasion for me to interfere. ' DEMAND NO. 9 (PRIVILEGE LEAVE) Under the provisions of section 49‑B of the Factories Act, a worker who has completed a period of 12 months of service is entitled to 14 days Annual Leave. Accumulation of leave is for two years only. The respondents have given 21 days annual leave with the accumulation of 2 years which is encashable. The workers have some other leaves also granted to them. The respondent concern works for 5 days a week with actual 35 working hours. Looking to all this, the demand as presented is indefensible. DEMAND NO 10 (PROPER DESIGNATION AND PAY) The demand was made but no evidence has. been led in support thereof and the matter would rest at that. DEMAND NO. 11 (FREE TRANSPORT) It is alleged that free transport should be provided to all the members of the staff including Telex Operators and the female workers. The drivers and the peons should be provided with motor‑cycles at the expense of the company. The company, as to be expected has no arrangement to lodge their employees in any accommodation of their own. They live scattered in different parts of the town. In the circumstances a fleet of vehicles will be needed and there will also be running costs. They are already being paid Conveyance Allowance at the rate of 10% with a limit of Rs.200. However, there is no transport given to those employees who are provided free accommodation. The demand was properly rejected. DEMAND NO. 12 (UNIFORMS) At present the peons and the drivers are provided with 3 shirts and two pants in summer. They are also provided with 2 coats, once in two years, 2 ties, two pairs of socks and one belt with two pairs of shoes in two years. They do not get any winter uniform. However, it appears that comparable concerns like Toyo Manka Kaisha Limited and Sumitomo Corporation are also providing one winter uniform every year. The Labour Court had therefore considered the demand of the union for the grant of one winter uniform in 2 years both to the peons and the drivers. That should satisfy them. It appears that the respondent as stated by Mr. Tamura have already arranged a Comprehensive Group Insurance to all its employees amounting to Rs.75,000 in relation to peons and drivers and Rs.1,00,000 in relation to others. In case of death as a result of accident the insurance of ‑the drivers is double the amount. That is enough to conclude the matter. DEMAND NO 14 (ANNUAL RECREATION) The record shows that the facilities as claimed have not been provided in any other comparable concern. According to the affidavit of Mr. Tamura Rs.3,000 is being paid to every employee on the birth of every child and Rs.5,000 in case of marriage of the employee. They are being given Rs.5,000 on the marriage of a son or a daughter and Rs.1,00,000 on the death of an employee, Rs.7,000 on the death of a son or a daughter, wife or parents, Rs.2,000 on the death of a newly born child and Rs.5,000 in case of still born. These are benefits which are not being given by any other comparable concern. The demand in the circumstances is without any merit. DEMAND NO 15 (REVISION OF PAY SCALE) No evidence has been led to justify the demand. The respondents are already giving the Special Allowance of Rs.200 per month to each employee in terms of section 3‑A under Sindh Employees Allowance (Payment) Act, 1986. The demand is therefore untenable and has been properly rejected. DEMAND NO 15 OFFICE ACCOMMODATION) This demand for Office Accommodation was not pressed before the Labour Court and even here. DEMAND NO 17 (DATE OF EFFECT) Proper reason has been given by the Labour Court as to why it was to be ineffective from 1st April, 1991 for a period of two years. That is in consonance with the language of section 32(1‑A)(5). Order accordingly. H.B.T./2243/Lb.S Order accordingly