1983 PLP 934 (PLC(CS))

The 10 contesting respondents are daily‑rated workers in the appellant -Company though they are paid wages at intervals of 15 days. Their grievance, which they preferred to the learned Had Labour Court, through a joint application under section 25‑A,

1. R.'O., is that they are being paid wages for only 26 working days in a month and not for the 4 Fridays of the month, which are the weekly holidays of the workers under the law. The appellant‑Company resisted the grievance petition of the respondents on the main ground that the wages of the contesting respondents bad been fixed on the basis of 26 days instead of 30 days and hence the grievance of the respondent was without substance. The grievance petition of the respondents was also resisted by the appellant -Company on the ground that it was barred by limitation inasmuch there was a previous grievance notice from the respondent, dated 15th December, 1981 which was duly replied by the appellant‑Company vide their letter; slated 8th December, 1981. The learned Labour Court repelled the objection based on the ground of limitation and took the view that the grievance of the respondents arose on receipt of the letter, dated 3rd April, 1982, in reply to the grievance notice of the respondents, dated 29th March, 1982. On the main issue as to the entitlement of the respondents to wages for the weekly rest day, the learned Labour Court has held that there was no substance in the contention of the appellant -Company that the wages of the respondents have been calculated on the basis of 26 days. The learned Labour Court further observed that once daily wage was fixed at certain figure, it no longer retains its character of being 1/26th of the monthly wages and it would be wrong to regard it as certain fraction of the monthly wages. In support of these findings, the learned Labour Court has relied upon the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Bombay Port Trust v. Trustees of the Bombay Port Trust (1962 P L C 227), and‑the decision of my learned predecessor in the case reported as Workers' Union v. Adam Tea Blending Company (1976 P L C 476).

2. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned representative for the appellant- Company, assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 2 grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice, dated 29th March, 1982, preferred by the respondents has been. given by only one respondent in his individual capacity and hence the grievance petition in respect of the'other 9 respondents is not maintainable ; and secondly, that there is tangible evidence on record to indicate that the wages of the respondents have been fixed on the basis of 26 days in a month or in other words the daily wages have been computed 1/26th of the monthly wages.

3. Now, as regards the first objection of Mr. Masood Mirza, it may be pointed out that no such objection was raised by the appellant‑Company in its written statement filed before the learned Labour Court. Even otherwise, this objection is without substance. It is an admitted position that Mohammad Miskeen, who has signed the grievance notice, dated 29th March, 1982, is the General Secretary of the Union which is the Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment of the appellant‑Company Furthermore, the grievance notice has been given on the letter‑pad of the Workers' Union which is the C. B. A. in the establishment of the appellant‑Company. The appellant‑Company clearly understood the grievance notice to be from the General Secretary of the C. B. A. for their reply, dated 3‑4‑1982, is to the General Secretary of the C. B. A. I am therefore, of the view that the 10 respondents have preferred a proper grievance notice through the General Secretary of the C. B. A.

4. It next falls to be considered whether the wages of the 10 contest ing respondents, or any‑part thereof, has been fixed on the basis of 26 days in a month or in other words whether in fixing the wages or any part thereof of the contesting respondents, the appellant‑Company has included the wages for the weekly rest days.` For this purpose the total wages of the contesting respondents may be divided into 3 parts, the first part being the Cost of Living Allowance of Rs. 150 p: m., which is deemed to be a part of the wages of the workers, the second part being the increase in wages given to the workers from time to time under the settlements arrived at between the appellant‑Company and the C. B. A. therein, and the basic wages of the respondents before such increases. It was not disputed by Mr. Muhammad Shafi Mohammadi, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that ‑ the full Cost of Living Allowance of Rs. 150 per month was being paid to the respondents in two equal instalments. Coming to the second component tof the wages of the respondents, namely, the various increases in their wages on account of the different settlements arrived at between the appellant‑Company and the C. B. A. therein, the first settlement in this behalf is. dated 26th June, 1977. By this settlement the appellant‑Company had agreed to give an increase of Rs. 30 per mouth to all permanent workers‑‑who would be on the Rolls of the company on 1st May, 1978, and had further agreed to give one increase of Rs. ‑30 per month to all the ,permanent workers who had more than 3 months services effective from Ist July, 1977, 1 find that with effect from Ist July, 1977, the wages of each of the 10 contesting respondents were increased by the appellant‑Company by Rs. 1.15 per day. The letters of the company, dated 13th August, 1977, addressed to the respondent and bearing their signatures in token of having received the same, not only communicate to them the factum of increase in their wages but also expressly state that the increase is as per settlement, dated 9th July, 1977. The increase in the daily wages of the 10 contesting respondents, vide the above letter, is clearly on the basis of 26 days in a month. The next letter in this behalf is dated 9th May, 1978, and by this letter, the 10 respondents were informed that their wages have been increased by Rs. 1.15 per day with effect from Ist May, 1978, as per agreement, dated 9th July, 1977. This letter was in implementation of the second increase envisaged under the agreement of 9th July, 1977, and again the increase was on the basis of 26 days in a month. The second settlement which is on the record of the case is dated 19tb June, 1979, and it provides that the management has agreed to increase the wages of all confirmed and regular workmen by Rs. 50 per month with effect from 1st June, 1979. The agreement further provides for an additional increase of Rs. 50 per month from Ist June, 1980 to all the confirmed workers who would be on the Roll of the company on the said date. In pursuance of this agreement, a letter, dated 16th July, 1979, was addressed by the appellant‑Company to all the 10 contesting respondents informing them that their wages had been increased by Rs. 1.92 per day with effect from 1st June, 1979. The letter expressly states that the increase was as per agreement of 15th July, 1979. Again this increase of Rs. 1.92 was on the basis of 26 working days. For implementation of the second part of this agreement in regard to the second increase of Rs. 50 with effect from 1st June, 1980, a letter, dated 4th June, 1980, was addressed by the appellant‑Company to each of the 10 contesting respondents informing them that their wages have been increased by 1.92 per day with effect from 1st June, 1980. This increase is clearly on the basis of 26 days in a month.

5. The last agreement on record is the one that was arrived at on 4th October, 1981. By this agreement, the appellant‑Company agreed to increase the basic wages of all confirmed workers who are on the Roll of the company on Ist‑ July, 1981, by Rs. 100 with effect from Ist July, 1981. In implementation of this provision in the settlement, a letter, dated 22nd October, 1981, was addressed by the appellant‑Company to all the 10 respondents informing them that their wages had been increas ed by Rs. 3.85 per day with effect from Ist July, 1981, as per the settle ment. Again this increase of 3.85 per day is fixed on the calculation of 26 days in a month.

6. An examination of the personal file of respondent, Muhammad Fazal indicates that though his wage were increased in May, 1975 and May 1976, these increments were not on the basis of any settlement and hence it cannot be said that these increments were on the basis of 26 working days.

7. So far as the third component of the wages of the respondents is concerned, namely, their basic wages before the increases according to the settlements from 1977 to 1981, there is nothing on record to indicate that the said component was worked out on the basis of 26 days in a month. Mr. Masood Mirza sought to argue that since the other 2 com ponents of the wages of the respondents are .worked out on the basis of 26 days in a month, the natural presumption should be that this compo nent is also to be worked out on the basis. of 26 days in a month. 1. however, am unable to agree with this contention of the learned Representa tive. In the case of the other 2 components, there is clear evidence to indicate that they are worked out on the basis of 26 days in a month. but no evidence is forthcoming for the third component. I am; therefore, of the view that the 10 contesting respondents are entitled to the wages for the rest days in a month consisting of the third component only, i.e. wages excluding the Cost of Living Allowance and the increase in wages after the three settlements referred to. above.

8. The learned Labour Court has awarded the difference in wages to the respondents for the period of 3 years preceding the date of the impugned decision. However, under section 25‑A, I. R, O., a claim can only be made in respect of a matter for which a grievance ,notice has been served upon the employer. The grievance notice is to be served upon the employer within 3 months from the time the grievance arises. Even, if it .be assumed but the grievance of the respondents was a continuing , one, claim could only be made for the period not exceeding 3 months from the date of the service of the notice. I would, therefore, direct that the arrears of the difference should be paid to each of the respondents for the period upto 3 months, before the service of the grievance notice, dated 29th March, 1982, i.e. with effect from 29th December, 1981. Order accordingly