1977 PLP 406 (PLC)
MESSRS DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus EMPLOYEES' UNION
| Citation | 1977 PLP 406 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus EMPLOYEES' UNION |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 406 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 406 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 406 (PLC) (MESSRS DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus EMPLOYEES' UNION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Zamirul Hasan for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Increase in salary‑Demand for increase in wages made on ground of such increase having been allowed in other industhes and on basis of increase in cost of living‑Such increase neither proved to have been made in comparable concerns nor could it be claimed on ground of increase in cost of living in view of increase in cost of living allowance already allowed by Government‑Evidence produced found to be meagre and insufficient‑Award of Labour Court allowing increase set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. This appeal has been filed against the award of Labour Court.
2. The Union raised the Industrial dispute, raising 23 demands. The conciliation proceedings were resumed. Since there was no settlement an application was filed in the Labour Court under section 32(1‑A) of I. R. O., 1969. The appellant resisted the demands. The General Secretary of the Union alone appeared as witness in support of the demands.
3. The Labour Court on assessment of the evidence accepted' Demands Nos. 5 and 12 while rejected the remaining demands. Demand No. 5 relates to increase in wages while Demand No. 12 relates to the payment of money claimed due to workers.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned Representative of the appel lant, while none has appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of the service of the notice.
5. The learned representative of the appellant confined his objection to Demand No.
5. The Union had claimed 50 % increase in the basic salary on account of increase of Cost of Living. The Labour Court allowed the increase of 75 paisa per day. It is an admitted position that the salary of the workers increased in 1973. It was asserted by the General Secretary the there had been increase in the salary of workers in other Textile mills, but this cannot be the ground for increase in salary unless it is proved that they were comparable concerns. There is absolutely no evidence to that effect. On the contrary the General Secretary admitted in cross‑examination that the appellant suffered losses moreover, the increase in salary were sought on the basis of the increase in the cost of living but admittedly the Government had increased Cost of Living Allowance thrice. Consequently the demand for increase in salary could not be based on that ground. In my view no justification has been provided to support the increase in salary. The evidence is meagre and insufficient to support the claim. The Labour Court clearly erred in alloying the increase solely on the basis of evidence of General Secretary unsupported by any evidence either oral or documentary.
6. In result I allow the appeal and set aside the award with regard to Demand No. 5 relating to the increase of salary. S. Q. Appeal allowed.