1987 PLP 138 (PLC)

Mirza M. Kazim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1986. The instant appeal to the reference made before the Labour Court No. IV at Karachi was argued by both the parties. The reference opined that though Ahmad Ali was re‑instated but was not given back benefits, hence he is still entitled to the bonus.

2. Ahmad Ali was dismissed in a domestic enquiry for remaining absent for more than 10 days. He was re‑instated by the Tribunal. He was to be re‑instated without back benefits on 8‑12‑1982 on 30‑5‑1983, the management issued a notice Annexure 'A‑1' to the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 in which they announced bonus equal to 5 months basic salary and other dues as bonus for the financial year ending 31‑12‑1982 to be given to those workers/ employees who had completed at least 90 days continuous service with the establishment during the financial year ending 31‑12‑1982 and were at the pay roll of the company on 31‑12‑1982.

3. The matter was argued at length. The words were on the pay roll of the company as on 31‑12‑1982 were announced by notice Annexure 'A‑1' to be entitled for bonus. Ahmad Ali, therefore, on 8‑8‑1983 made an application for bonus. The company, however, refused him bonus because according to the wording of bonus, he should have worked for 90 days, but Ahmad Ali has worked for 22 days only before 31‑12‑1982. The management did not favour to give him the bonus. I have seen the Annexure 'A‑1', dated 30‑5‑1983. Following words are material:‑ All those permanent workers/employees will be entitled for bonus who have completed at least 90 days continuous service with the company during the financial year 1982 and were on pay roll of the company as at December 31, 1982. Those permanent workers/ employees who have completed 90 days service or more but less than one year's service during the financial year 1982 and were on the pay roll of the company as at December 31, 1982, will be paid on pro rata basis. The words in this context which appear that he is on pay roll on 31‑12‑1982, he would be entitled to bonus. This view is taken by the learned Labour Court. Although the actual working days were 22 number yet he would get pro rata bonus on 22 days irrespective of 90 days continuous service.

4. Since the appellant Ahmad Ali was on the pay roll of the company on 31‑12‑1982, he is entitled to bonus to whatever the limits is fixed by the management. I am referred to section 10‑C of bonus, but irrespective of this, the management has a discretion to award bonus since he was on pay roll on 31‑12‑1982. Arguments put forward by the learned representative, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani are not in accordance with the idea of bonus given to the poor people. A poor person who has fallen ill for a number of days may also be considered for bonus even if he has not earned wages and he was on pay roll on 31‑12‑1982.A The Management may consider to what extent he would be given bonus. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed by me as observed by the learned Labour Court.

5. The back benefits are a judicial order and cannot‑go against the award of bonus. A.E. Appeal dismissed