1977 PLP 343 (PLC)

Industrial dispute ‑‑‑‑

Bonus‑Management itself making offer of bonus but later opposing demand on ground that there was no sufficient profit‑‑Nothing brought on record to establish that financial position of Management had changed‑Statement of account showing meagre profit produced by Management not accepted in circumstances of case Relief granted by Labour Court, held, does rot call for interference. This is an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against an award given by the Labour Court.

2. The Union raised an industrial dispute by serving a Demand Notice under section 26(1) of the I. R. O. The negotiations started but since there was no likelihood of the settlement the Union sent a Strike Notice on the 23rd of November, 1974. Conciliation proceedings having failed the dispute was taken to the Labour Court. This was res1sted by the Management. Evidence was recorded and on the basis of the evidence the award was given. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed by the Management.

3. A preliminary objection was taken that the industrial dispute was not maintainable as the provision of section 26 (3) was not complied with inasmuch as according to subsection (2) of section 26 the dispute had to be settled within ten days of the receipt of the notice of demands and in case there was no settlement the Union could within seven days from the end of the period referred to in subsection (2) serve a notice of strike but in this case notice of strike was served before the expiry of ten days of the service of notice of demand. According to the Management the demand notice was despatched by the Union on 14th November, 1974 and was received on 15th November, 1974 while the strike notice was given on November, 1975. It was, therefore, contended that the pro‑visions being mandatory, the non-complaisance rendered the proceedings invalid. This objection was also taken before the Labour Court arid was overruled.

4. The Labour Court clearly in holding that the demand notice was despatched on 12th November, 1974. It was asserted by the Management that the notice was despatched on 14th and received on the 15th November. This is supported by the envelope bearing the postal seal dated lath November, 1974.‑ The fact that the notice was received on 15th was also mentioned in the letter dated 18th November, 1974 sent by the Management to the Union in reply to the demand notice. Admittedly the notice was sent by reg1stered post but the Union failed to produce the postal receipt in order to establish that the notice was despatched on the 12th November, and not on the 14th of November although the Management had taken up this plea in the written statement which was filed. Despite the conclusion reached by me I am not inclined to hold that the strike notice was invalid. According to section 26 (3) of I. R. O. the notice of strike is required to be served on the Management within one week on the expiry of the period of ten days as prescribed in sub section (2). In the present case it is an admitted position that the strike notice although despatched on the 23rd was received by the Management on the 25th which was clearly after expiry of ten days. It is a date of the service of the notice which is relevant and not the date when it was despatched. It, therefore, follows that there is no force in the contention that the notice of strike was served before the expiry of the period of ten days.

5. Before proceeding to take up the demands, it may be mentioned that at one stage, prior to the resumption of the conciliation proceedings, the Management had agreed to offer certain benefits as embodied in the document Exh. 9 but the workers did not agree. Most of the reliefs granted by the Labour Court are based either on the; previous settlement Exh. 8 or on the aforesaid document Exh. 9.

6. At the outset of the arguments the representative of the Management did not press his objections against Demands Nos. 1, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 as allowed by the Labour Court. During the course of the argu ments it was agreed by both the parties with regard to Demand No. 12 that five minutes late arrival shall be ignored instead of fifteen minutes ordered by the Labour Court and further every day fifteen minutes break for tea at 10‑00 a.m. and one hour break for `Jumma Prayer' from 1‑30 p.m. to 2‑30 p.m. shall be allowed with pay. As regards the remaining demands except Demand No. 4 it was agreed by both the parties that the same be disposed of in terms of the previous settlement Exh. a and draft agreement Exh.

9. In view of this agreement Demands Nos. 3, 6 and 9, are allowed in terms of previous settlement Exh. 8 and Demands Nos. 7, 8 and 10‑A are allowed in terms of the draft agreement Exh. 9 while demands Nos. 2, 5, 10‑B and 16 must be deemed to have been rejected as no such benefits were conceded in the draft agreement Exh. 9.

7. Taking up Demand No. 4 relating to bonus, the Labour Court had allowed this demand in terms of draft agreement. This has, however, been opposed by the representative for the Management on the ground since there was no sufficient profit the demand could not be accepted. The offer for the grant of bonus was made for two years i.e. 1973‑74 and 1974‑

75. It is to be presumed that at the time when offer was made the Company was conscious of the financial position and the profit which was made or was likely to be made. Nothing substantial has been brought on record to establish that the circumstances had changed. I am not inclined to accept the statement of account produced by the Company showing meagre profit which was alleged to have been made. In my view, the relief granted by the Labour Court is quite reasonable and does not call for interference.

8. In the light of what has been stated, the award given by the Labour Court is modified and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.