1992 PLP 839 (PLC(CS))

(5) As a gesture of goodwill the management has further agreed to pay bonus for the accounting years ending 31-12-1988, -2. 1-12-1989 and 31-12-1990 equivalent to 55 days wages on the same basis as in clause 4, above, to be paid by 15th of Ramazan every year. (6) The management has further agreed that the minimum annual increment of a worker will not be less than Rs.15. (7) The management has further agreed to supply a new pair of shoes to each worker during July-August each year free of charge."

11. It may also be pointed out that apart from this settlement of Hotel Jabees no other evidence has been produced in support of the demands to show that after the last agreement there has been increase in the cost of living or in the cost of each item of demand. No such question has been even put to the witness of the respondent. Therefore, the only piece of evidence available with the Court was the settlement of Hotel Jabees for determining the reasonableness or otherwise of the demand of the appellant. No doubt as pointed out above the presumption would be that the respondent was earning some profits and would be in a position to pay such benefits as are being paid by comparable concern but in case where the demands of worker exceed the benefits awarded by comparable concern to its workers the burden of proof would be upon the Workers Union to show that the establishment have earned extraordinary profits or had earned more profits than comparable concern. There is no such evidence produced by the appellant.

12. Now I proceed to consider each demand of the appellants. Under this demand the appellant had demanded for construction of a `mosque' in the establishment, appointment of `Penh Imam', carpeting of the mosque and the provisions of `caps' etc. for the purpose of `prayer'. It appears that under clause 6 of the previous settlement between the parties,-one big room of hotel was reserved for purpose of mosque which was to be fully carpeted. The appellants' witness Abdul Zuhaid had denied in the cross- examination that the room in the hotel had been reserved for said purpose in terms of previous settlement. However, in view of the fact that demand with regard to mosques had already been settled in the last agreement, this demand is allowed to the extent that a big fully carpeted room in the hotel be reserved for the purpose of `prayer' in terms of the previous agreement, if it has not been done so far. The provision of caps would also not involve any much financial burden and is reasonable demand which is also accepted. With regard to the appointment of `Pesh Imam' it is not necessary to have regular `Posh Imam'. Any Muslim, including employee of the respondents, can act as `Pesh Imam'. Demand of `Pesh Imam' will also involve unnecessary financial burden and is, therefore, rejected. The appellant-Union had demanded that `every year four workers be sent to perform `Haj' at the expenses of the respondent and that those workers be paid full wages during the period of Haj. The settlement between employees union and the Hotel Jabees relied upon by the appellants does not provide for any such benefits to the workman. Besides, Haj is a religious duty cast upon every Muslim who can afford to perform Haj. The employer cannot be forced, even on religious grounds, to send its workers to Haj on its own expenses. The demand has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. The appellant union had demanded `separate Cafeteria' of the capacity of 70 persons/workers for eating there with good furniture and crockery, and `Sehri' and `Iftari' be also given to them during the month of `Ramazan'. Admittedly in pursuance of the previous agreement well-furnished `Cafeteria' is provided for free food to the employees. The Hotel is primarily meant for serving food to its customers and it would be unjust to ask them to provide huge Cafeteria for the capacity of seventy persons for the workers only. Under the circumstances the facility provided to the workers under the previous agreement is ordered to continue and demand for huge cafeteria for p seventy workers at a time has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. No such facility is provided by Hotel Jabees under the Settlement. The appellant union demand `increase of Rs.500 per month with a minimum salary of Rs.1,000 and the workers should be given detailed salary slip every month. The learned Labour Court accepted the demand that the workers should be given detailed salary slip every month and no objection has been filed by the respondent against that award. The agreement of Hotel Jabees shows that salary was increased by Rs.90 per month from 1-1-1988 and maximum salary was also increased by a sum of Rs.90. In the absence of any evidence to show that the respondents are earning more profits than the Hotel Jabees the increase in salary is allowed to the extent of Rs.100 per month as has been done in the case of employees of Hotel Jabees. The maximum salary of various scales also be increased by a sum of Rs.100 so as to cover this increase salary in various pay scales. The request for increase of Rs.500 looks unjustified and no evidence has been produced except settlement of Hotel Jabees to justify demand of such increase in the salary. This demand is disposed of accordingly. The appellant union had demanded three bonuses every year i.e. two for both the `Eids' and one on the occasion of `Easter'. Admittedly the respondent are paying bonus as provided for under Standing Order 10-C. The payment of bonus is co-related with the quantum of profit earned by the management. Extra bonus can be allowed only when evidence shows that the respondent establishment has earned extraordinary profit. The burden of proof in such case would be upon the Union to show that the respondent have earned extraordinary or huge profit. In the case of Babul Islam Printing Press, Karachi v. Workers Union this Tribunal held `that the entitlement of bonus of workers depends upon profits and where there was no evidence of such profit bonus could not be claimed.' Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the cases reported in 1975 PLC 84 and 1978 PLC

406. This demand, therefore, was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. The appellant union had demanded Rs. 200 per annum increment for each worker which appears to be rather/fantastic. Under the Settlement of Hotel Jabees it was provided that minimum annual increment of workers should not be less than Rs.15. In the absence of any other evidence with regard to the quantum of the profits earned by the respondent establishment and the increase in the cost of living this is the only evidence with regard to this demand. The demand is therefore allowed to the extent that minimum annual. increment of workers would not be less than Rs.20. Applicant union demanded `House Rent' at the rate of 70% of monthly salary. There is no evidence to show that House Rent at the rate of 70% monthly salary is being paid by any comparable concern to its employee/workers or that the rent has increased to that extent. As such this demand has rightly been rejected by learned Labour Court. Applicant union demanded shift allowance at the rate of Rs.150 per month and Rs.200 for night shift for each of the workers. This demand is also not supported by any evidence and as such has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. . Demand No.9 consists of two demands. Firstly the applicant union demanded that each worker should be paid attendance allowance of Rs.150 per month. In absence of any evidence on the lines mentioned above this demand has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. The second part of this demand relates to the grant of Casual Leave and Sick Leave as provided under the law. The labour Court has relied upon 1983 PLC 532 and held that demand relating to enforcement of right of worker conferred by law cannot be subject matter of Industrial Dispute. The definition of Industrial Dispute under section 2(xiii) supports this view of learned Labour Court as it excludes the dispute in respect of enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to worker by or under any law, other than this Ordinance, or any award or settlement for the time being in force. The demand has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. The applicant union's demand for allowance of Rs.300 per month for Cashier/worker has also been rejected by the learned Labour Court for non-production of proper evidence by the applicant union. Applicant's demand for introduction of Provident Fund Scheme was opposed by the respondent on the ground that they were already paying gratuity to the workers at the rate of 20 days a year. The applicants have failed to produce any evidence in support of the demand as such it was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. Demands Nos. 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39. and

41. In the foregoing paras this Tribunal has laid down, the standard of proof required to be adduced in support of demands. Keeping in view this standard of evidence, the Demands Nos. 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 41 have rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. Applicant union has demanded for the introduction of Workers' Participation Scheme. There is no evidence to show that if any such Scheme is introduced by any comparable concern or the profits earned by the respondents justify the introduction of such Scheme. There is also no evidence to show as to whether the respondent is a Company as defined under the Scheme under Companies Profits (West Pakistan) Workers Participation Act, 1968. If it is a Company coming within the scope of said Act right of workers is guaranteed by the said Act and cannot be subject-matter of Industrial Dispute for which the applicant has to approach competent Authority under the said Act. The demand has rightly been rejected by the learned Labour Court. These demands have been rejected by the learned Labour Court as the benefits are already available to the workers under the Old-Age Benefits Scheme and Social Security Scheme. I see no reason to disagree. The applicant union has demanded 'First Aid' Box in every Department and keeping of `ambulance' for the workers and also permission to submit `Medical Certificate' by any `Private Doctor'. The keeping of `First Aid' Box in every Department would not involve much expenses. It is a fair demand and is therefore accepted. With regard to permission to submit Medical Certificate for any Private Doctor the demand would be fair unless the workers are covered under the Social Security ordinance under which Ordinance they are entitled to be treated by the Doctors appointed by Social Security Organization and require production of the certificate of such doctor. This demand is disposed of accordingly: Keeping of the `ambulance' involves expenditure. To me it appears that in big Organizations should be kept by the establishment to meet with any emergency. However, it involves quite lot of expenditure. There is no evidence to show that respondents do earn enough profit to meet with such expenditure or that any other comparable concern keeps such ambulance. For want of sufficient evidence I am unable to accept this Demand. However, I would suggest that Government may make suitable amendment in relevant law making it obligatory for big establishment employing more than 200 workmen to keep such ambulance. Applicant union demanded `festival holidays' on full pay and also payment of salary on the day preceding such holidays. Respondent claim that they are already allowing such holidays to the workers but show their inability to arrange salary of the workers on the day preceding such holiday. This demand does not involve any financial implication. It should not be impossible for the respondents to arrange salary of the workers on the day preceding such holidays, therefore, this demand is just and is accepted. Applicant union demands one month's full wages on the day before the religious day which may be recovered from the workers in instalments. This demand does not involve any additional financial burden, but would enable the workers to enjoy `religious/festival'. As there are two `Eids' in a year, the advance pay to them on Eids can be recovered each in five equal instalments from the salary of the workers for the remaining ten months of the year. This demand is, therefore, allowed accordingly. Applicant union demands fifty per cant discount on all meals, drinks and confectionary purchased by the workers with permission to take his guest in the hotel restaurant. There is no evidence to show that if any such concession is allowed in any comparable concern. Under Demand No. 3, the workers are already provided with free food. Therefore this demand is rejected. These demands have been accepted by the learned Labour Court and no appeal has been filed against said order as such I need not discuss these two demands. The applicant union has demanded two pairs of shoes and two pairs of uniforms each year for every worker. The Settlement of Hotel Jabees shows that the said hotel has to supply new pair of shoes to each worker each year in July-August free of charge. As such this demand is partly accepted to the extent, that the respondent would supply one pair of uniform and one pair of shoes to every worker free of charge in July-August each year. Applicant union has demanded a separate room for changing clothes with attached bath in every department and also a separate steel locker for every worker. There is no evidence to show how many departments are in the hotel. If a separate room is provided in every department, it will curtail availability of the rooms in the hotel which they could give to their customers. However, the demand of the workers cannot be ipso facto rejected as unjustified. There is justification of at least provision of one room for change of clothes for the workers and for as many steel lockers as the number of workers employed in each shift. Such lockers should be made available to the workers in each subsequent shift for their use or could be used jointly to two or three workers depending on numbers of shifts. This would not involve any extraordinary expenditure that the respondents could not bear but it will ensure the safety of the clothes and articles of the workmen. This demand is accepted to the above extent. Applicant union had demanded Eid Milan Party and Milad Party to be held in `Kanwal Restaurant' of the respondents on expenses of the respondents in respect of food and decoration also. There is no evidence of any such concession by any comparable concern. However, under the provision of settlement admittedly the Milad Party could be held in `Mehran View' and so also Eid Milan with `dinner' free of cost to the workers. The concession under the previous agreement to continue. This demand is disposed of accordingly. The applicant's union demand that absence of the workers during curfew or emergency should be treated as leave with pay and that the workers who cannot return to their homes during that period should be provided food and lodging free of cost and the respondents should also arrange for their transport. There is no evidence of any such concession in any comparable concern. However, it is admitted that absence due to curfew and emergency is ' being treated as `leave without pay'. If the demand of workers for `pay' is accepted then even those workers who could come, would not come. However, with regard of workers who could not go back to their homes during curfew, the respondent should provide them with reasonable lodging accommodation free of cost and with food free of cost. The demand is partly accepted to the above extent. This demand has become infructuous as no fresh demand has been raised during the negotiations. The applicant union demanded that the tenure of the agreement should be for one year and the facilities already given to the workers by the agreement or otherwise shall remain in force. The period of agreement has been specified in the agreement and under section 40 of I.R.O. that agreement, however, would stand superseded after this award.

13. The appeal stands disposed of by this Award as per decisions under each demand. This `Award' in this appeal shall be effective from 26-3-1990 upto 15-6-1992. M.Y.H./1886/Lb.S Order accordingly.